Determining energy needs in critically ill patients: Equations or indirect calorimeters

Robert N. Cooney, David Frankenfield

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review focuses on current methodology for the most accurate way to determine resting metabolic rate in critically ill patients and to evaluate whether application of any particular method improves clinical outcome. RECENT FINDINGS: Consensus is that indirect calorimetry is the most accurate method for determining resting metabolic rate. Whenever an alternate method of determining energy expenditure is tested (e.g. equations), the criterion method used in the validation is indirect calorimetry. Of the alternates to indirect calorimetry, the Penn State equation has the strongest validation work supporting it. No study has been undertaken to determine whether the drop in accuracy associated with estimation methods translates into deterioration in clinical outcome compared to nutrition support guided by measurements. SUMMARY: Indirect calorimetry is the most accurate way to determine calorie needs in critically ill patients. Compared to indirect calorimetry, metabolic rate equations are accurate about 75% of the time. No study has been performed to determine whether the measurement or estimation method improves clinical outcome.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)174-177
Number of pages4
JournalCurrent opinion in critical care
Volume18
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2012

Fingerprint

Indirect Calorimetry
Critical Illness
Basal Metabolism
Energy Metabolism

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

@article{de5c8e54154a4254a51138d5e5fe63b4,
title = "Determining energy needs in critically ill patients: Equations or indirect calorimeters",
abstract = "PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review focuses on current methodology for the most accurate way to determine resting metabolic rate in critically ill patients and to evaluate whether application of any particular method improves clinical outcome. RECENT FINDINGS: Consensus is that indirect calorimetry is the most accurate method for determining resting metabolic rate. Whenever an alternate method of determining energy expenditure is tested (e.g. equations), the criterion method used in the validation is indirect calorimetry. Of the alternates to indirect calorimetry, the Penn State equation has the strongest validation work supporting it. No study has been undertaken to determine whether the drop in accuracy associated with estimation methods translates into deterioration in clinical outcome compared to nutrition support guided by measurements. SUMMARY: Indirect calorimetry is the most accurate way to determine calorie needs in critically ill patients. Compared to indirect calorimetry, metabolic rate equations are accurate about 75{\%} of the time. No study has been performed to determine whether the measurement or estimation method improves clinical outcome.",
author = "Cooney, {Robert N.} and David Frankenfield",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283514bbc",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "174--177",
journal = "Current Opinion in Critical Care",
issn = "1070-5295",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

Determining energy needs in critically ill patients : Equations or indirect calorimeters. / Cooney, Robert N.; Frankenfield, David.

In: Current opinion in critical care, Vol. 18, No. 2, 01.04.2012, p. 174-177.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Determining energy needs in critically ill patients

T2 - Equations or indirect calorimeters

AU - Cooney, Robert N.

AU - Frankenfield, David

PY - 2012/4/1

Y1 - 2012/4/1

N2 - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review focuses on current methodology for the most accurate way to determine resting metabolic rate in critically ill patients and to evaluate whether application of any particular method improves clinical outcome. RECENT FINDINGS: Consensus is that indirect calorimetry is the most accurate method for determining resting metabolic rate. Whenever an alternate method of determining energy expenditure is tested (e.g. equations), the criterion method used in the validation is indirect calorimetry. Of the alternates to indirect calorimetry, the Penn State equation has the strongest validation work supporting it. No study has been undertaken to determine whether the drop in accuracy associated with estimation methods translates into deterioration in clinical outcome compared to nutrition support guided by measurements. SUMMARY: Indirect calorimetry is the most accurate way to determine calorie needs in critically ill patients. Compared to indirect calorimetry, metabolic rate equations are accurate about 75% of the time. No study has been performed to determine whether the measurement or estimation method improves clinical outcome.

AB - PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review focuses on current methodology for the most accurate way to determine resting metabolic rate in critically ill patients and to evaluate whether application of any particular method improves clinical outcome. RECENT FINDINGS: Consensus is that indirect calorimetry is the most accurate method for determining resting metabolic rate. Whenever an alternate method of determining energy expenditure is tested (e.g. equations), the criterion method used in the validation is indirect calorimetry. Of the alternates to indirect calorimetry, the Penn State equation has the strongest validation work supporting it. No study has been undertaken to determine whether the drop in accuracy associated with estimation methods translates into deterioration in clinical outcome compared to nutrition support guided by measurements. SUMMARY: Indirect calorimetry is the most accurate way to determine calorie needs in critically ill patients. Compared to indirect calorimetry, metabolic rate equations are accurate about 75% of the time. No study has been performed to determine whether the measurement or estimation method improves clinical outcome.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858794842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858794842&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283514bbc

DO - 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3283514bbc

M3 - Review article

C2 - 22322264

AN - SCOPUS:84858794842

VL - 18

SP - 174

EP - 177

JO - Current Opinion in Critical Care

JF - Current Opinion in Critical Care

SN - 1070-5295

IS - 2

ER -