JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2016
Can We Rely on Predicted Basal Metabolic Rate in Patients With Intestinal Failure on Home Parenteral Nutrition?
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Skallerup Anders, Nygaard Louis, Olesen Søren Schou, Vinter-Jensen Lars, Køhler Marianne, Rasmussen Henrik Højgaard
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Intestinal failure (IF) is a serious and common complication of short bowel syndrome with patients depending on parenteral nutrition (PN) support. Effective nutrition management requires an accurate estimation of the patient's basal metabolic rate (BMR) to avoid underfeeding or overfeeding. However, indirect calorimetry, considered the gold standard for BMR assessment, is a time- and resource-consuming procedure. Consequently, several equations for prediction of BMR have been developed in different settings, but their accuracy in patients with IF are yet to be investigated. We evaluated the accuracy of predicted BMR in clinically stable patients with IF dependent on home parenteral nutrition (HPN).
METHODS: In total, 103 patients with IF were included. We used indirect calorimetry for assessment of BMR and calculated predicted BMR using different equations based on anthropometric and/or bioelectrical impedance parameters. The accuracy of predicted BMR was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis with measured BMR as the gold standard.
RESULTS: The average measured BMR was 1272 ± 245 kcal/d. The most accurate estimations of BMR were obtained using the Harris-Benedict equation (mean bias, 14 kcal/d [ P = .28]; limits of agreement [LoA], -238 to 266 kcal/d) and the Johnstone equation (mean bias, -16 kcal/d [ P = .24]; LoA, -285 to 253 kcal/d). For both equations, 67% of patients had a predicted BMR from 90%-110% All other equations demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant difference between measured and predicted BMR.
CONCLUSIONS: The Harris-Benedict and Johnstone equations reliably predict BMR in two-thirds of clinically stable patients with IF on HPN.
METHODS: In total, 103 patients with IF were included. We used indirect calorimetry for assessment of BMR and calculated predicted BMR using different equations based on anthropometric and/or bioelectrical impedance parameters. The accuracy of predicted BMR was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis with measured BMR as the gold standard.
RESULTS: The average measured BMR was 1272 ± 245 kcal/d. The most accurate estimations of BMR were obtained using the Harris-Benedict equation (mean bias, 14 kcal/d [ P = .28]; limits of agreement [LoA], -238 to 266 kcal/d) and the Johnstone equation (mean bias, -16 kcal/d [ P = .24]; LoA, -285 to 253 kcal/d). For both equations, 67% of patients had a predicted BMR from 90%-110% All other equations demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant difference between measured and predicted BMR.
CONCLUSIONS: The Harris-Benedict and Johnstone equations reliably predict BMR in two-thirds of clinically stable patients with IF on HPN.