English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Indirect calorimetry is the reference method for measuring resting energy expenditure (REE), but the necessary equipment and technical expertise are not always available. Meanwhile, the NUTrition Risk in the Critically ill (NUTRIC) scale is designed to identify patients who would benefit from nutrition therapy, but no data are available regarding the association of NUTRIC scores with REE. Several predictive formulas are available as alternatives to indirect calorimetry for calculation of energy requirements, but they have not been compared in a homogeneous group of critically ill patients. The purpose of the study is to examine the correlations between energy expenditure and NUTRIC scores or patient outcomes, and to compare measured REE with estimations of energy expenditure.    Methods  In this observational, prospective study, indirect calorimetry was performed on 50 mechanically ventilated patients. Energy expenditure was also estimated with the bodyweight-based, Faisy–Fagon, and Penn-State PSU m  equations.    Results  REE was higher in patients who survived treatment than in those who died, and was positively correlated with length of stay and duration of ventilation. NUTRIC scores did not correlate with REE. The Faisy–Fagon equation overestimated expenditure, whereas PSU m  was unbiased and accurate. Calculations based on 25 kcal/kg bodyweight/day overestimated expenditure, whereas 23 kcal/kg/day produced unbiased estimates with greater accuracy than PSU m .    Conclusion  REE was positively associated with patient outcomes. Energy expenditure was accurately predicted by calculations of 23 kcal/kg bodyweight/day.

Associations of measured resting energy expenditure with predictive equations, NUTRIC score, and patient outcomes