Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26494245›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2015

Ventilator-derived carbon dioxide production to assess energy expenditure in critically ill patients: proof of concept.

Sandra N Stapel, Harm-Jan S de Grooth, Hoda Alimohamad, Paul W G Elbers, Armand R J Girbes, Peter J M Weijs, Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02815527 (Time to Protein Target, the 'HIGH WHEY' Study A Prospective Pilot Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02815527 completednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Time to Protein Target, the 'HIGH WHEY' Study A Prospective Pilot Study

TypeobservationalSponsorAmsterdam UMC, location VUmcRan2016 to 2017Enrolled20ConditionsCritically IllArmsFresubin intensive
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sandra N StapelDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1181HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. s.stapel@vumc.nl.
Harm-Jan S de GroothDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1181HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.degrooth@vumc.nl.
Hoda AlimohamadDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1181HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. hoda.04@gmail.com.
Paul W G ElbersDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1181HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p.elbers@vumc.nl.
Armand R J GirbesDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1181HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. arj.girbes@vumc.nl.
Peter J M WeijsDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1181HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p.weijs@vumc.nl.
Heleen M Oudemans-van StraatenDepartment of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1181HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.oudemans@vumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMeasurement of energy expenditure (EE) is recommended to guide nutrition in critically ill patients. Availability of a gold standard indirect calorimetry is limited, and continuous measurement is unfeasible. Equations used to predict EE are inaccurate. The purpose of this study was to provide proof of concept that EE can be accurately assessed on the basis of ventilator-derived carbon dioxide production (VCO2) and to determine whether this method is more accurate than frequently used predictive equations.

methodsIn 84 mechanically ventilated critically ill patients, we performed 24-h indirect calorimetry to obtain a gold standard EE. Simultaneously, we collected 24-h ventilator-derived VCO2, extracted the respiratory quotient of the administered nutrition, and calculated EE with a rewritten Weir formula. Bias, precision, and accuracy and inaccuracy rates were determined and compared with four predictive equations: the Harris-Benedict, Faisy, and Penn State University equations and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guideline equation of 25 kcal/kg/day.

resultsMean 24-h indirect calorimetry EE was 1823 ± 408 kcal. EE from ventilator-derived VCO2 was accurate (bias +141 ± 153 kcal/24 h; 7.7 % of gold standard) and more precise than the predictive equations (limits of agreement -166 to +447 kcal/24 h). The 10 % and 15 % accuracy rates were 61 % and 76 %, respectively, which were significantly higher than those of the Harris-Benedict, Faisy, and ESPEN guideline equations. Large errors of more than 30 % inaccuracy did not occur with EE derived from ventilator-derived VCO2. This 30 % inaccuracy rate was significantly lower than that of the predictive equations.

conclusionsIn critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, assessment of EE based on ventilator-derived VCO2 is accurate and more precise than frequently used predictive equations. It allows for continuous monitoring and is the best alternative to indirect calorimetry.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessNutritional StatusAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCalorimetry, IndirectCarbon DioxideEnergy MetabolismEnvironmental MonitoringFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVentilators, MechanicalCarbon Dioxide

Identifiers

PMID26494245
PMCPMC4619027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.