Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access

New generation indirect calorimeters for measuring energy expenditure in the critically ill: a rampant or reticent revolution?

  • Elisabeth De Waele1Email author,
  • Patrick M. Honore1 and
  • Herbert D. Spapen1
Critical Care201620:138

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1315-4

Published: 5 June 2016

The original article was published in Critical Care 2016 20:54

Abstract

To lower the risk of incorrectly feeding critically ill patients, indirect calorimetry (IC) is proposed as the most ideal method to evaluate energy expenditure and to establish caloric goals. New IC devices are progressively introduced but validation of this new generation remains challenging and arduous.

Keywords

NutritionIndirect calorimetryIntensive care

Nutrition has definitely forged a place amidst the therapeutic armamentarium of the intensive care unit (ICU) [1, 2]. “Nutrition pharmacology” has developed into an intrinsic ICU subspecialty and knowledge on “critical care nutrition” is growing steadily [3]. Experts agree that energy-protein targeting is of cardinal importance in fragile and often malnourished ICU patients [4]. Adequate provision of calories over time is also linked to an improved clinical outcome [5].

Today, it is evident that a correct estimation of resting energy expenditure (REE) is indispensable within an ICU nutritional care plan. Equations for calculating REE often generate insufficiently precise or poorly reproducible results in critically ill patients [6, 7]. Indirect calorimetry (IC) may more accurately predict energy requirements and is actually recommended for use in this population [8]. For decades, the Deltatrac counted as the “gold standard” metabolic monitor for measuring REE in a critical care setting. The Deltatrac gained this status because it harvested measurements of oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) in mechanically ventilated patients that were equivalent to those obtained by mass spectrometry [9]. Unfortunately, production of the Deltatrac device has ceased completely. As a result, we are now facing a surge of “new generation” ICs aiming to fill in this gap. These devices rely on breath-by-breath technology for measuring gas exchange, which differs from the mixing chamber method used by the Deltatrac. Initial experience comparing novel ICs with the Deltatrac in spontaneously breathing subjects showed good precision and acceptable bias [10, 11]. However, mechanically ventilated ICU patients represent a particular challenge. Patient–ventilator interactions, either involuntarily but also increasingly indulged in modern ventilation strategies, may significantly affect or perturb gas exchange patterns and result in inconsistent measurements. In addition, novel ICs have not been extensively tested in thermogenically “unstable” conditions created by catecholamine treatment, varying sedation levels, more frequent use of continuous extracorporeal, including renal, supportive therapy, and differences in type and quantity of feeding. Studies on validation of novel IC instruments in mechanically ventilated patients have been disappointing. A study comparing the Deltatrac with the Medgraphics Ultima calorimeter showed acceptable bias but poor precision for measuring VO2 [12] and poor agreement was found between the Deltatrac and the Quark RMR, M-COVX, and Evita 4 monitors [13, 14].

In this issue of Critical Care, Sundström Rehal et al. present an elaborate study that underscores the complexity and pitfalls of metabolic measurement in the ICU [1]. Within a robust methodological framework, these investigators compared two new generation ICs (E-sCOVX and Quark RMR) with the Deltatrac. Both modern ICs systematically overestimated VO2 and VCO2 and showed high variability in REE assessment. Unlike Sundström Rehal et al., we believe that the degree of overestimation and observed lack of precision seriously questions whether these instruments have a compelling role in daily metabolic measurement. Results must also be interpreted within the constraints of a rigorous study protocol which may not be easily applicable in daily ICU routine. Nonetheless, the work of Sundström Rehal et al. holds an outspoken claim to further invest in appropriate validation studies and to foster research into functional improvement of existing devices or even the development of a specific ICU calorimeter.

Notes

Abbreviations

ICU: 

intensive care unit

REE: 

resting energy expenditure

VO2

oxygen consumption

VCO2

carbon dioxide production

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)
ICU Department, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

References

  1. Sundström Rehal M, Fiskaare E, Tjäder 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
  2. Iapichino G, Radrizzani D, Giacomini M, Pezzi A, Zaniboni M, Mistraletti G. Metabolic treatment of critically ill patients: energy expenditure and energy supply. Minerva Anestesiol. 2006;72:559–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Wischmeyer PE, Heyland DK. The future of critical care nutrition therapy. Crit Care Clin. 2010;26:433–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Singer P, Hiesmayr M, Biolo G, Felbinger TW, Berger MM, Goeters C, et al. Pragmatic approach to nutrition in the ICU: expert opinion regarding which calorie protein target. Clin Nutr. 2014;33:246–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Oshima T, Deutz NE, Doig G, Wischmeyer PE, Pichard C. Protein-energy nutrition in the ICU is the power couple: A hypothesis forming analysis. Clin Nutr. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2015.10.016.
  6. Preiser JC, van Zanten AR, Berger MM, Biolo G, Casaer MP, Doig GS. Metabolic and nutritional support of critically ill patients: consensus and controversies. Crit Care. 2015;19:35.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Picolo MF, Lago AF, Menegueti MG, Nicolini EA, Basile-Filho A, Nunes AA, et al. Harris-Benedict equation and resting energy expenditure estimates in critically ill ventilator patients. Am J Crit Care. 2016;25:e21–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Singer P, Berger MM, Van den Berghe G, Biolo G, Calder P, Forbes, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: intensive care. Clin Nutr. 2009;28:387–400.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Tissot S, Delafosse B, Bertrand O, Bouffard Y, Viale JP, Annat G. Clinical validation of the Deltatrac monitoring system in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med. 1995;21:149–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ashcraft CM, Frankenfield DC. Validity test of a new open-circuit indirect calorimeter. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2015;39:738–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Frankenfield DC, Ashcraft CM, Wood C, Chinchilli VM. Validation of an indirect calorimeter using n-of-1 methodology. Clin Nutr. 2016;35:163–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Black C, Grocott MP, Singer M. Metabolic monitoring in the intensive care unit: a comparison of the Medgraphics Ultima, Deltatrac II, and Douglas bag collection methods. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:261–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Graf S, Karsegard VL, Viatte V, Heidegger CP, Fleury Y, Pichard C, et al. 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
  14. Singer P, Pogrebetsky I, Attal-Singer J, Cohen J. Comparison of metabolic monitors in critically ill, ventilated patients. Nutrition. 2006;22:1077–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© De Waele et al. 2016

Advertisement