Accuracy of predictive methods to estimate resting energy expenditure of thermally-injured patients

Roland Dickerson, Jane M. Gervasio, Marti L. Riley, James E. Murrell, William Hickerson, Kenneth A. Kudsk, Rex Brown

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

77 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bias and precision of 46 methods published from 1953 to 2000 for estimating resting energy expenditure (REE) of thermally injured patients. Methods: Twenty-four adult patients With ≥20% body surface area burn admitted to a burn center who required specialized nutrition support and who had their REE measured via indirect calorimetry (IC) were evaluated. Patients with morbid obesity, human immunovirus, malignancy, pregnancy, hepatic or renal failure, neuromuscular paralysis, or those requiring a Fio2 >50% or positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≥10 cm H2O were excluded. One steady-state measured REE measurement (MEE) was obtained per patient. The methods of Sheiner and Beal were used to assess bias and precision of these methods. The formulas were considered unbiased if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the error (kilocalories per day) intersected 0 and were considered precise if the 95% CI for the absolute error (%) was within 15% of MEE. Results: MEE was 2780 ± 567 kcal/d or 158% ± 34% of the Harris Benedict equations. None of the methods was precise (≤15% CI error). Over one-half (57%) of the 46 methods had a 95% confidence interval error >30% of the MEE. Forty-eight percent of the methods were unbiased, 33% were biased toward overpredicting MEE, and 19% consistently underpredicted MEE. The pre-1980s methods more frequently overpredicted MEE compared with the 1990 to 2000 (p < .01) and 1980 to 1989 (p < .05) published methods, respectively. The most precise unbiased methods for estimating MEE were those of Milner (1994) at a mean error of 16% (CI of 10% to 22%), Zawacki (1970) with a mean error of 16% (CI of 9% to 23%), and Xie (1993) at a mean error of 18% (CI of 12% to 24%). The "conventional 1.5 times the Harris Benedict equations" was also unbiased and had a mean error of 19% (CI of 9% to 29%). Conclusions: Thermally injured patients are variably hypermetabolic and energy expenditure cannot be precisely predicted. If IC is not available, the most precise, unbiased methods were those of Milner (1994), Zawacki (1970), and Xie (1993).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)17-29
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2002

Fingerprint

Energy Metabolism
Confidence Intervals
Indirect Calorimetry
Burn Units
Morbid Obesity
Positive-Pressure Respiration
Body Surface Area
Liver Failure
Paralysis
Renal Insufficiency
Pregnancy

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Cite this

Accuracy of predictive methods to estimate resting energy expenditure of thermally-injured patients. / Dickerson, Roland; Gervasio, Jane M.; Riley, Marti L.; Murrell, James E.; Hickerson, William; Kudsk, Kenneth A.; Brown, Rex.

In: Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 26, No. 1, 01.01.2002, p. 17-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dickerson, Roland ; Gervasio, Jane M. ; Riley, Marti L. ; Murrell, James E. ; Hickerson, William ; Kudsk, Kenneth A. ; Brown, Rex. / Accuracy of predictive methods to estimate resting energy expenditure of thermally-injured patients. In: Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2002 ; Vol. 26, No. 1. pp. 17-29.
@article{017f4f8c29f14d80aa6491bdccee3405,
title = "Accuracy of predictive methods to estimate resting energy expenditure of thermally-injured patients",
abstract = "Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bias and precision of 46 methods published from 1953 to 2000 for estimating resting energy expenditure (REE) of thermally injured patients. Methods: Twenty-four adult patients With ≥20{\%} body surface area burn admitted to a burn center who required specialized nutrition support and who had their REE measured via indirect calorimetry (IC) were evaluated. Patients with morbid obesity, human immunovirus, malignancy, pregnancy, hepatic or renal failure, neuromuscular paralysis, or those requiring a Fio2 >50{\%} or positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≥10 cm H2O were excluded. One steady-state measured REE measurement (MEE) was obtained per patient. The methods of Sheiner and Beal were used to assess bias and precision of these methods. The formulas were considered unbiased if the 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) for the error (kilocalories per day) intersected 0 and were considered precise if the 95{\%} CI for the absolute error ({\%}) was within 15{\%} of MEE. Results: MEE was 2780 ± 567 kcal/d or 158{\%} ± 34{\%} of the Harris Benedict equations. None of the methods was precise (≤15{\%} CI error). Over one-half (57{\%}) of the 46 methods had a 95{\%} confidence interval error >30{\%} of the MEE. Forty-eight percent of the methods were unbiased, 33{\%} were biased toward overpredicting MEE, and 19{\%} consistently underpredicted MEE. The pre-1980s methods more frequently overpredicted MEE compared with the 1990 to 2000 (p < .01) and 1980 to 1989 (p < .05) published methods, respectively. The most precise unbiased methods for estimating MEE were those of Milner (1994) at a mean error of 16{\%} (CI of 10{\%} to 22{\%}), Zawacki (1970) with a mean error of 16{\%} (CI of 9{\%} to 23{\%}), and Xie (1993) at a mean error of 18{\%} (CI of 12{\%} to 24{\%}). The {"}conventional 1.5 times the Harris Benedict equations{"} was also unbiased and had a mean error of 19{\%} (CI of 9{\%} to 29{\%}). Conclusions: Thermally injured patients are variably hypermetabolic and energy expenditure cannot be precisely predicted. If IC is not available, the most precise, unbiased methods were those of Milner (1994), Zawacki (1970), and Xie (1993).",
author = "Roland Dickerson and Gervasio, {Jane M.} and Riley, {Marti L.} and Murrell, {James E.} and William Hickerson and Kudsk, {Kenneth A.} and Rex Brown",
year = "2002",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/014860710202600117",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "17--29",
journal = "Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition",
issn = "0148-6071",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of predictive methods to estimate resting energy expenditure of thermally-injured patients

AU - Dickerson, Roland

AU - Gervasio, Jane M.

AU - Riley, Marti L.

AU - Murrell, James E.

AU - Hickerson, William

AU - Kudsk, Kenneth A.

AU - Brown, Rex

PY - 2002/1/1

Y1 - 2002/1/1

N2 - Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bias and precision of 46 methods published from 1953 to 2000 for estimating resting energy expenditure (REE) of thermally injured patients. Methods: Twenty-four adult patients With ≥20% body surface area burn admitted to a burn center who required specialized nutrition support and who had their REE measured via indirect calorimetry (IC) were evaluated. Patients with morbid obesity, human immunovirus, malignancy, pregnancy, hepatic or renal failure, neuromuscular paralysis, or those requiring a Fio2 >50% or positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≥10 cm H2O were excluded. One steady-state measured REE measurement (MEE) was obtained per patient. The methods of Sheiner and Beal were used to assess bias and precision of these methods. The formulas were considered unbiased if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the error (kilocalories per day) intersected 0 and were considered precise if the 95% CI for the absolute error (%) was within 15% of MEE. Results: MEE was 2780 ± 567 kcal/d or 158% ± 34% of the Harris Benedict equations. None of the methods was precise (≤15% CI error). Over one-half (57%) of the 46 methods had a 95% confidence interval error >30% of the MEE. Forty-eight percent of the methods were unbiased, 33% were biased toward overpredicting MEE, and 19% consistently underpredicted MEE. The pre-1980s methods more frequently overpredicted MEE compared with the 1990 to 2000 (p < .01) and 1980 to 1989 (p < .05) published methods, respectively. The most precise unbiased methods for estimating MEE were those of Milner (1994) at a mean error of 16% (CI of 10% to 22%), Zawacki (1970) with a mean error of 16% (CI of 9% to 23%), and Xie (1993) at a mean error of 18% (CI of 12% to 24%). The "conventional 1.5 times the Harris Benedict equations" was also unbiased and had a mean error of 19% (CI of 9% to 29%). Conclusions: Thermally injured patients are variably hypermetabolic and energy expenditure cannot be precisely predicted. If IC is not available, the most precise, unbiased methods were those of Milner (1994), Zawacki (1970), and Xie (1993).

AB - Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bias and precision of 46 methods published from 1953 to 2000 for estimating resting energy expenditure (REE) of thermally injured patients. Methods: Twenty-four adult patients With ≥20% body surface area burn admitted to a burn center who required specialized nutrition support and who had their REE measured via indirect calorimetry (IC) were evaluated. Patients with morbid obesity, human immunovirus, malignancy, pregnancy, hepatic or renal failure, neuromuscular paralysis, or those requiring a Fio2 >50% or positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≥10 cm H2O were excluded. One steady-state measured REE measurement (MEE) was obtained per patient. The methods of Sheiner and Beal were used to assess bias and precision of these methods. The formulas were considered unbiased if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the error (kilocalories per day) intersected 0 and were considered precise if the 95% CI for the absolute error (%) was within 15% of MEE. Results: MEE was 2780 ± 567 kcal/d or 158% ± 34% of the Harris Benedict equations. None of the methods was precise (≤15% CI error). Over one-half (57%) of the 46 methods had a 95% confidence interval error >30% of the MEE. Forty-eight percent of the methods were unbiased, 33% were biased toward overpredicting MEE, and 19% consistently underpredicted MEE. The pre-1980s methods more frequently overpredicted MEE compared with the 1990 to 2000 (p < .01) and 1980 to 1989 (p < .05) published methods, respectively. The most precise unbiased methods for estimating MEE were those of Milner (1994) at a mean error of 16% (CI of 10% to 22%), Zawacki (1970) with a mean error of 16% (CI of 9% to 23%), and Xie (1993) at a mean error of 18% (CI of 12% to 24%). The "conventional 1.5 times the Harris Benedict equations" was also unbiased and had a mean error of 19% (CI of 9% to 29%). Conclusions: Thermally injured patients are variably hypermetabolic and energy expenditure cannot be precisely predicted. If IC is not available, the most precise, unbiased methods were those of Milner (1994), Zawacki (1970), and Xie (1993).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036153041&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036153041&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/014860710202600117

DO - 10.1177/014860710202600117

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 17

EP - 29

JO - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

JF - Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

SN - 0148-6071

IS - 1

ER -