首页> 外文OA文献 >Accuracy of predictive methods to estimate resting energy expenditure of thermally-injured patients
【2h】

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

机译:预测方法的准确性来估计热损伤患者的静息能量消耗

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsTwenty-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 u3e50% 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.ResultsMEE 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 u3e30% 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 u3c .01) and 1980 to 1989 (p u3c .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 u22conventional 1.5 times the Harris Benedict equationsu22 was also unbiased and had a mean error of 19% (CI of 9% to 29%).ConclusionsThermally 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).
机译:背景本研究的目的是评估1953年至2000年发表的46种方法来估计热损伤患者的静息能量消耗(REE)的偏倚和精确度。方法24例烧伤≥20%体表面积的成年患者被允许烧伤对需要专门营养支持和通过间接量热法(IC)测定其REE的中心进行了评估。排除了病态肥胖,人类免疫病毒,恶性肿瘤,妊娠,肝或肾衰竭,神经肌肉麻痹或需要FiO2≥50%或呼气末正压(PEEP)≥10 cm H2O的患者。每位患者获得一份稳态测量的REE测量值(MEE)。使用Sheiner和Beal的方法来评估这些方法的偏差和精度。如果误差的95%置信区间(CI)相交0,则认为公式无偏;如果绝对误差(%)的95%CI在MEE的15%以内,则认为公式是精确的。结果MEE为2780 ±567 kcal / d或Harris Benedict方程的158%±34%。没有一种方法是精确的(≤15%CI误差)。 46种方法中,超过一半(57%)的置信区间误差为MEE的95%。 48%的方法没有偏见,33%的人偏向于过度预测MEE,19%的人始终偏低地预测MEE。与1990年至2000年(p u3c .01)和1980年至1989年(p u3c .05)公布的方法相比,1980年代以前的方法更经常高估了MEE。估计MEE的最精确的无偏方法是Milner(1994)的平均误差为16%(CI为10%至22%),Zawacki(1970)的平均误差为16%(CI为9%至23) ,Xie(1993)的平均误差为18%(CI为12%至24%)。传统的1.5倍哈里斯·本尼迪克特方程式也没有偏倚,平均误差为19%(CI为9%至29%)。结论热伤患者的代谢异常,能量消耗也无法精确预测。如果没有可用的IC,则最精确,无偏的方法是Milner(1994),Zawacki(1970)和Xie(1993)的方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号