This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0148607108322399v1 33/1/27    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Frankenfield, D. C. Articles by Cooney, R. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Frankenfield, D. C. Articles by Cooney, R. N. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Analysis of Estimation Methods for Resting Metabolic Rate in Critically Ill Adults

Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dfrankenfield{at}psu.edu.

	Abstract

Background: Prediction of metabolic rate is an important part of the nutrition assessment of critically ill patients, yet there are limited data regarding the best equation to use to make this prediction. Methods: Standardized indirect calorimetry measurements were made in 202 ventilated, adult critical care patients, and resting metabolic rate was calculated using the following equations: Penn State equation, Faisy, Brandi, Swinamer, Ireton-Jones, Mifflin, Mifflin x 1.25, Harris Benedict, Harris Benedict x 1.25, Harris Benedict using adjusted weight for obesity, and each of the adjusted weight versions of Harris Benedict x 1.25. The subjects were subgrouped by age and obesity status (young nonobese, young obese, elderly nonobese, elderly obese). Performance of each equation was assessed using bias, precision, and accuracy rate statistics. Results: Accuracy rates in the study population ranged from 67% for the Penn State equation to 18% for the weight-adjusted Harris Benedict equation (without multiplication). Within subgroups, the highest accuracy rate was 77% in the elderly nonobese using the Penn State equation and the lowest was 0% for the weight-adjusted Harris Benedict equation. The Penn State equation was the only equation that was unbiased and precise across all subgroups. The obese elderly group was the most difficult to predict. Therefore, a separate regression was computed for this group: Mifflin(0.71) + Tmax(85) + Ve(64) – 3085. Conclusions: The Penn State equation provides the most accurate assessment of metabolic rate in critically ill patients if indirect calorimetry is unavailable. An alternate form of this equation for elderly obese patients is presented, but has yet to be validated. (JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2008;xx:xxx-xxx)

First published on November 14, 2008, doi:10.1177/0148607108322399

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 2009;33:27.

A more recent version of this article appeared on January 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. Williams-Dolan and J. I. Boullata Letter to the Editor JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, November 1, 2009; 33(6): 735 - 736. [Full Text] [PDF]