VCO2-derived energy expenditure: do not throw the baby out with the bath water!
© The Author(s). 2017
Published: 5 April 2017
With great interest we read the retrospective study performed by Oshima et al.  evaluating whether VCO2-based energy expenditure (EE-VCO2) could be considered as an alternative to EE measured by indirect calorimetry. This study followed several prospective studies reporting good agreement between EE-VCO2 and EE measured by indirect calorimetry [2, 3]. Indeed, in their retrospective cohort of 278 mechanically ventilated patients, the authors found a low bias of −48 kcal/day for EE-VCO2, when calculated with a fixed respiratory quotient (RQ) of 0.85. They reported 5%-accuracy rates of 46% and 10%-accuracy rates of 77% for EE-VCO2. This indicates that EE-VCO2 is unreliable in some patients, likely due to extreme RQs or to high ventilator rates as observed in young children . The weak spot of using EE-VCO2 is that an RQ has to be assumed in order to derive the unknown oxygen consumption (VO2) needed to calculate EE according to the Weir formula: EE(kcal/day) = 1.44 × (3.94 × VO2(mL/min) + 1.11 × VCO2(mL/min)).
However, despite high 10%-accuracy rates, the authors considered a 10% difference in measured and calculated EE clinically unacceptable and concluded that EE-VCO2 should not be considered as an alternative to EE measured by indirect calorimetry.
First and foremost, we agree with the authors that indirect calorimetry remains the gold standard for assessment of EE in mechanically ventilated patients. However, we regret that the authors failed to mention that EE-VCO2 should be considered as the best alternative for clinicians not having access to indirect calorimetry. Unfortunately, few units have indirect calorimetry available and, more importantly, the most validated system (Deltatrac) is no longer being manufactured and new devices are not accurate . Many ICU clinicians still rely on predictive equations that have repeatedly proven to be inaccurate, leading to deleterious over- and underfeeding. The results of the Oshima study underscore findings in prospective studies in ICU patients that EE-VCO2 has good accuracy and is superior to predictive equations [2, 3]. Furthermore, when using built-in capnographs and flow meters, VCO2 is available from the ventilator and EE-VCO2 can be used to assess EE continuously. Continuous measurement is important because EE varies over the day and during ICU stay. This is an advantage of EE-VO2 over the short-term EE measurements by indirect calorimetry.
Therefore, awaiting new, affordable, and accurate indirect calorimeters, EE-VCO2 appears to be the best alternative in spite of its known limitations. Thus, the use of EE-VCO2 assuming an RQ of 0.85, rather than applying predictive equations, is currently recommended to reduce over- and underfeeding.
- EE-VCO2 :
Carbon dioxide production based energy expenditure
Intensive care unit
- VCO2 :
Carbon dioxide production
- VO2 :
Availability of data and materials
SS, PE, and HO wrote the manuscript. HO had primary responsibility for final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
SS and PE declare that they have no competing interests. HO received research support from Fresenius, Nutricia, and Nestlé and received Speaker’s honoraria for lectures and advisory meetings from Fresenius, Nutricia, Gambro/Baxter, and Abbot.
Consent for publication
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Oshima T, Graf S, Heidegger CP, Genton L, Pugin J, Pichard C. Can calculation of energy expenditure based on CO2 measurements replace indirect calorimetry. Crit Care. 2017;21:13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Rousing ML, Hahn-Pedersen MH, Andreassen S, Pielmeier U, Preiser JC. Energy expenditure in critically ill patients estimated by population-based equations, indirect calorimetry and CO2 based indirect calorimetry. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6(1):16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Stapel SN, de Grooth HJS, Alimohamad H, Elbers PWG, Girbes ARJ, Weijs PJM, Oudemans HM. Ventilator-derived carbon dioxide production to assess energy expenditure in critically ill patients: proof of concept. Crit Care. 2015;19:370.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Kerklaan D, Augustus ME, Hulst JM, van Rosmalen J, Verbruggen SC, Joosten KF. Validation of ventilator-derived VCO2 measurements to determine energy expenditure in ventilated critically ill children. Clin Nutrition. 2016. Epub ahead of print.
- Sundstrom Rehal M, Fiskaare E, Tjader I, Norberg A, Rooyackers O, Wernerman J. Measuring energy expenditure in the intensive care unit: a comparison of indirect calorimetry by E-sCOVX and Quark RMR with Deltatrac II in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2016;20:54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar