Skip to content

Advertisement

Critical Care

Open Access

Simple equations for complex physiology: can we use VCO2 for calculating energy expenditure?

Critical Care201620:72

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1251-3

Published: 21 March 2016

The Letter to this article has been published in Critical Care 2016 20:224

The original article was published in Critical Care 2015 19:370

In a recent article, Stapel et al. [1] gave a practical and easy solution for the evaluation of energy expenditure in critically ill patients. Predictive equations are routinely used to determine energy needs and to guide the prescription of calories in critically ill patients [2]. However, their accuracy is very poor, resulting in both over- and underfeeding [3], and thus confounding the validity of many studies based on these equations. Indirect calorimetry remains the gold standard to determine calorie requirements, as well as to calculate energy expenditure (EE) from oxygen consumption (VO2), carbon dioxide production (VCO2) and nitrogen excretion (NM) measurements [4]. These devices are still seldom used since they may be expensive, require expertise and have several technical limitations [5]. Moreover, the most accurate device, the Deltatrac II (GE, Finland) is not widely available and other new devices have still to achieve its accuracy [6].

From the basic equation:
$$ \mathrm{E}\mathrm{E}\ \left(\mathrm{kcal}\right) = 3.581\ \mathrm{V}\mathrm{O}2\ \left(\mathrm{L}\right) + 1.448\ \mathrm{V}\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}2\ \left(\mathrm{L}\right)-1.773\ \mathrm{urinary}\ \mathrm{nitrogen}\ \left(\mathrm{g}\right) $$

it is clear that the most important measurement for EE is VO2. A 10 % error in VO2 causes a 7 % error in EE while a 10 % error in VCO2 causes a 3 % error in EE [7]. Most devices are measuring VO2 and VCO2 or VO2 alone. EE derived from VCO2 alone was suggested already 25 years ago [8], using estimates of the energy equivalents of CO2 (energy expended/CO2 produced; EeqCO2). Taking into account the variations in CO2 related to starvation or artificial enteral feeding, tracer techniques demonstrated that the calculation of resting energy expenditure (REE) from CO2 production should not employ a universal value for VCO2. Nevertheless, measurement of VCO2 and the replacement of VO2 by VCO2/0.84 have been proposed to calculate EE [8]. This general value of 0.84 is the result of the arithmetic mean of the respiratory quotient (RQ) of the three main macronutrients: (1 + 0.809 + 0.707)/3 = 0.84. Since the measurement of VCO2 is available in many ventilator devices, it was suggested that this may be an easy and inexpensive way to calculate EE. Mehta et al. [9] used VCO2 alone in critically ill children to calculate EE and suggested that the REE may be obtained by measuring VCO2 through integrated devices in the ventilator or by a stand-alone monitor. The modified Weir equation (REE, kcal/day = 5.5 × VCO2 (L/min) × 1440 using a fixed RQ of 0.89) was compared with predictive equations and found to be much more accurate [7]. However, there was an inherent inaccuracy due to the fixed RQ. When a RQ macro (based on the ratio of carbohydrate to fat in the diet) was used based on the ratio between carbohydrates to fat in the diet, a closer agreement was obtained between measured and REE derived from VCO2 alone, reaching a mean bias for agreement between measured REE and VCO2-derived REE of −2.0 %, but with wide limits.

Sandra Stapel and colleagues [1] have proposed an even more sophisticated approach to achieve better accuracy using VCO2 alone in ventilated critically ill patients, extracting RQ from the nutrition regimen for each evaluation and not using a fixed value. When comparing this approach to mean 24 hour indirect calorimetry-based EE, bias was shown to be low, i.e., 141 ± 153 kcal/day and 7.7 % of the gold standard. In addition, it was more precise than the more frequently used equations (limits of agreement −166 to +447 kcal/day). These results may encourage physicians who do not have access to direct calorimetry but have ventilators equipped with VCO2 measurement modified by an adapted RQ, to derive EE from this measurement in order to more appropriately target the calorie prescription.

However, while the use of complicated mathematics resulted in good precision and low bias, the concept does not reflect the complexity of physiology in the critically ill patient. First the administered nutrients are only partially absorbed in these patients. Thus, small intestine glucose absorption is markedly impaired, independently of duodeno-cecal transit time [10] while lipid absorption is reduced by almost half when compared with healthy volunteers [11]. Secondly, endogenous glucose production is not depressed despite nutrition administration; adding a load of endogenous carbohydrates to the nutrient administration and autophagy provides endogenous lipids, carbohydrates and protein [12]. Third, secondary to stress, there is significant insulin resistance as well as obligatory lipolysis [13] and severe proteolysis which nutrients are unable to inhibit [14]. Finally, body substrate oxidation obtained by indirect calorimetry is far from the nutrient administration [15], making the correlation between the prescription and the respiratory quotient more difficult.

Conclusion

Stapel et al. based their theory on the fact that the absorbed macronutrients determine the RQ, arguing that what is administered is utilized. While this approach may be preferred to predictive equations, it cannot reflect the complex physiologic changes seen in critically ill patients. Inaccuracies inherent in these types of calculations or measurements may explain why some interventional nutrition studies fail to achieve positive clinical outcomes.

Notes

Abbreviations

EE: 

energy expenditure

NM: 

nitrogen excretion

REE: 

resting energy expenditure

RQ: 

respiratory quotient

VCO2: 

carbon dioxide production

VO2: 

oxygen consumption

Declarations

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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Critical Care Department, Institute for Nutrition Research, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel
(2)
Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

References

  1. Stapel SN, de Grooth HJS, Alimohamad H, Elbers PW, Girbes AR, Weijs PJ, et al. 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
  2. Frankenfield D, Roth-Yousey L, Compher C. Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:775–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Reid CL. Poor agreement between continuous measurements of energy expenditure and routinely used prediction equations in intensive care unit patients. Clin Nutr. 2007;26:649–57.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Singer P, Berger MM, Van den Berghe G, Biolo G, Calder P, Forbes A, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: intensive care. Clin Nutr. 2009;28:387–400.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Compher C, Frankenfield D, Klein N, Roth YL. Best practice methods to apply to measurement of resting metabolic rate in adults: a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106:881–903.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Graf S, Karsegard VL, Viatte V, Heidegger CP, Fleury Y, Pichard C, Genton L. Evaluation of three indirect calorimetry devices in mechanically ventilated patients: which device compares best with the Deltatrac II®? A prospective observational study. Clin Nutr. 2015;34:60–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bursztein S. The theorical framework of indirect calorimetry and energy balance. In: Bursztein S, Elwyn DH, Askanazi J, Kinney JM, editors. Energy metabolism, indirect calorimetry and Nutrition: the theoretical framework. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1989. p. 27–84.Google Scholar
  8. Elia M. Energy equivalents of CO2 and their importance in assessing energy expenditure when using tracer techniques. Am J Physiol. 1991;260:E75–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mehta NM, Smallwood CD, Joosten KFM, Hulst JM, Tasker RC, Duggan CP. Accuracy of a simplified equation for energy expenditure based on bedside volumetric carbon dioxide elimination measurement—a two-center study. Clin Nutr. 2015;34:151–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Deane AM, Rayner CK, Keeshan A, Cvijanovic N, Marino Z, Nguyen NQ, et al. Effects of critical illness on intestinal glucose sensing, transporters, and absorption. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:57–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Abdelhamid YA, Cousins CE, Sim JA, Bellon MS, Nguyen NQ, Horowitz M, et al. Effect of critical illness on triglyceride absorption. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014;39:966–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. McClave SA, Weijs PJ. Preservation of autophagy should not direct nutritional therapy. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2015;18:155–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Green P, Theilla M, Singer P. Lipid metabolism in critical illness. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2015; in press.Google Scholar
  14. Friedrich O, Reid MB. Vana den Berghe G, Vanhoerebeek I, Hermans G, Rich MM, Larsson L. The sick and the weak: neuropathies/myopathies in the critically ill. Physiol Rev. 2015;95:1025–109.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Tappy L, Chiolero R. Substrate utilization in sepsis and multiple organ failure. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:S531–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Singer. 2016

Advertisement