Clinical evaluation of the new indirect calorimeter in canopy and face mask mode for energy expenditure measurement in spontaneously breathing patients.
Canopy
Face mask
Indirect calorimetry
Nutritional assessment
Resting energy expenditure
Journal
Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)
ISSN: 1532-1983
Titre abrégé: Clin Nutr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8309603
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
08
02
2022
revised:
18
05
2022
accepted:
21
05
2022
pubmed:
8
6
2022
medline:
29
6
2022
entrez:
7
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The new indirect calorimeter developed in the framework of the ICALIC project was first evaluated in ventilation mode. This second phase aimed to compare its ease of use and precision with another commonly used device in spontaneously breathing adult patients using a canopy hood or a face mask. The time required to measure resting energy expenditure (REE) with Q-NRG® in canopy and face mask mode was compared with Quark RMR® in canopy mode by sequential measurements in 45 and 40 spontaneously breathing adult patients, respectively. Their precision was assessed at different time intervals, using coefficients of variation (CV%) and repeated measures one-way ANOVA. Agreement between the two devices was evaluated by correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and paired t-test. Patients' characteristics potentially affecting the measurement were assessed using linear regression analysis. REE measurement with Q-NRG® was faster than Quark RMR® (19.7 ± 2.9 min vs 24.5 ± 4.3 min, P < 0.001). In canopy mode, Q-NRG® gave values similar to Quark RMR®, with 73% of patients achieving a steady state (CV% <10%) within the 5-15 min interval. In face mask mode, Q-NRG® was less stable than Quark RMR® in canopy mode, and steady state was achieved in only 40% of the patients within the 5-15 min interval. Correlation between the two devices was stronger when Q-NRG® was used in canopy than in face mask mode, with Pearson coefficients of 0.96 and 0.86, respectively. Compared to Quark RMR® in canopy mode, systematic bias±1.96∗SD with Q-NRG® was -14 ± 236 kcal/day in canopy and 73 ± 484 kcal/day in face mask mode. Q-NRG® in face mask mode overestimated REE by 150 ± 51 kcal/day in men compared to Quark RMR® in canopy mode. Q-NRG® in canopy mode made it possible to save at least 5 min compared to Quark RMR® while maintaining the same measurement precision. However, its use in face mask mode could lead to REE overestimation in men and, therefore, should not be recommended in the clinical setting. ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT03947294.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & AIMS
The new indirect calorimeter developed in the framework of the ICALIC project was first evaluated in ventilation mode. This second phase aimed to compare its ease of use and precision with another commonly used device in spontaneously breathing adult patients using a canopy hood or a face mask.
METHODS
The time required to measure resting energy expenditure (REE) with Q-NRG® in canopy and face mask mode was compared with Quark RMR® in canopy mode by sequential measurements in 45 and 40 spontaneously breathing adult patients, respectively. Their precision was assessed at different time intervals, using coefficients of variation (CV%) and repeated measures one-way ANOVA. Agreement between the two devices was evaluated by correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and paired t-test. Patients' characteristics potentially affecting the measurement were assessed using linear regression analysis.
RESULTS
REE measurement with Q-NRG® was faster than Quark RMR® (19.7 ± 2.9 min vs 24.5 ± 4.3 min, P < 0.001). In canopy mode, Q-NRG® gave values similar to Quark RMR®, with 73% of patients achieving a steady state (CV% <10%) within the 5-15 min interval. In face mask mode, Q-NRG® was less stable than Quark RMR® in canopy mode, and steady state was achieved in only 40% of the patients within the 5-15 min interval. Correlation between the two devices was stronger when Q-NRG® was used in canopy than in face mask mode, with Pearson coefficients of 0.96 and 0.86, respectively. Compared to Quark RMR® in canopy mode, systematic bias±1.96∗SD with Q-NRG® was -14 ± 236 kcal/day in canopy and 73 ± 484 kcal/day in face mask mode. Q-NRG® in face mask mode overestimated REE by 150 ± 51 kcal/day in men compared to Quark RMR® in canopy mode.
CONCLUSIONS
Q-NRG® in canopy mode made it possible to save at least 5 min compared to Quark RMR® while maintaining the same measurement precision. However, its use in face mask mode could lead to REE overestimation in men and, therefore, should not be recommended in the clinical setting.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT03947294.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35671611
pii: S0261-5614(22)00180-7
doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2022.05.018
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03947294']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1591-1599Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.