Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Simple and accurate assessment of energy expenditure in ventilated paediatric intensive care patients.
Clin Nutr. 2004 Aug; 23(4):657-63.CN

Abstract

AIMS

To assess validity and reliability of energy expenditure measurements with a short Douglas bag protocol compared to the standard metabolic monitor in a paediatric intensive care setting.

METHODS

51 paired measurements were performed in 14 ventilated patients (age 0-18 years) with sepsis, trauma or following major surgery. Measured data were compared mutually and compared to Schofield equations using Bland-Altman analysis.

RESULTS

Comparing Douglas bag (3.21 +/- 1.43 MJ/day) and metabolic monitor (3.15 +/- 1.49 MJ/day) we found bias in energy expenditure of -0.06 (equal to -2%, NS) with limits of agreement of -0.5 to 0.4 MJ/day (equal to -16% to +13%). Intra-measurement variability (coefficient of variation) was within 10% for both methods. Both the metabolic monitor and Douglas bag showed significant bias compared to Schofield equations (3.39 +/-1.64 MJ/day) of -7% (P < 0.01) and -5% (P < 0.05), respectively, with wide limits of agreement: metabolic monitor vs. Schofield: -37% to +22%, Douglas bag vs. Schofield: -37% to +26%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Douglas bag method compared favourably to the metabolic monitor where Schofield equations failed to predict individual energy expenditure. Considering its low cost, this renders the short and simple Douglas bag method a robust measure and a routinely applicable instrument for tailored nutritional assessment in critically ill children.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Paediatrics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. mvanderkuip@vumc.nlNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15297103

Citation

van der Kuip, Martijn, et al. "Simple and Accurate Assessment of Energy Expenditure in Ventilated Paediatric Intensive Care Patients." Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), vol. 23, no. 4, 2004, pp. 657-63.
van der Kuip M, de Meer K, Oosterveld MJ, et al. Simple and accurate assessment of energy expenditure in ventilated paediatric intensive care patients. Clin Nutr. 2004;23(4):657-63.
van der Kuip, M., de Meer, K., Oosterveld, M. J., Lafeber, H. N., & Gemke, R. J. (2004). Simple and accurate assessment of energy expenditure in ventilated paediatric intensive care patients. Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 23(4), 657-63.
van der Kuip M, et al. Simple and Accurate Assessment of Energy Expenditure in Ventilated Paediatric Intensive Care Patients. Clin Nutr. 2004;23(4):657-63. PubMed PMID: 15297103.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Simple and accurate assessment of energy expenditure in ventilated paediatric intensive care patients. AU - van der Kuip,Martijn, AU - de Meer,Kees, AU - Oosterveld,Michiel J S, AU - Lafeber,Harry N, AU - Gemke,Reinoud J B J, PY - 2003/07/21/received PY - 2003/11/04/accepted PY - 2004/8/7/pubmed PY - 2005/4/13/medline PY - 2004/8/7/entrez SP - 657 EP - 63 JF - Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) JO - Clin Nutr VL - 23 IS - 4 N2 - AIMS: To assess validity and reliability of energy expenditure measurements with a short Douglas bag protocol compared to the standard metabolic monitor in a paediatric intensive care setting. METHODS: 51 paired measurements were performed in 14 ventilated patients (age 0-18 years) with sepsis, trauma or following major surgery. Measured data were compared mutually and compared to Schofield equations using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Comparing Douglas bag (3.21 +/- 1.43 MJ/day) and metabolic monitor (3.15 +/- 1.49 MJ/day) we found bias in energy expenditure of -0.06 (equal to -2%, NS) with limits of agreement of -0.5 to 0.4 MJ/day (equal to -16% to +13%). Intra-measurement variability (coefficient of variation) was within 10% for both methods. Both the metabolic monitor and Douglas bag showed significant bias compared to Schofield equations (3.39 +/-1.64 MJ/day) of -7% (P < 0.01) and -5% (P < 0.05), respectively, with wide limits of agreement: metabolic monitor vs. Schofield: -37% to +22%, Douglas bag vs. Schofield: -37% to +26%. CONCLUSIONS: The Douglas bag method compared favourably to the metabolic monitor where Schofield equations failed to predict individual energy expenditure. Considering its low cost, this renders the short and simple Douglas bag method a robust measure and a routinely applicable instrument for tailored nutritional assessment in critically ill children. SN - 0261-5614 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15297103/Simple_and_accurate_assessment_of_energy_expenditure_in_ventilated_paediatric_intensive_care_patients_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261561403002449 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -