Suppr超能文献

通气模式之间的比较:活动水平如何影响能量消耗估计值?

A comparison between ventilation modes: how does activity level affect energy expenditure estimates?

作者信息

Hoher Jorge A, Zimermann Teixeira Paulo José, Hertz Felipe, da S Moreira José

机构信息

Central Intensive Care Unit, Complexo Hospitalar Santa Casa, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

出版信息

JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2008 Mar-Apr;32(2):176-83. doi: 10.1177/0148607108314761.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

An appropriate diet is essential to avoid complications of overfeeding or underfeeding in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The paucity of consistent comparative data on energy expenditure for each ventilation mode complicates diet prescription. This study evaluates caloric requirements by comparing estimated and measured energy expenditure values for 2 ventilation modes.

METHODS

The energy expenditure of 100 ICU patients on assisted or controlled mechanical ventilation was measured by indirect calorimetry for 20 minutes. Values were calculated for a 24-hour period and compared with Harris-Benedict estimates multiplied by an injury factor and either multiplied or not by a 10% activity factor.

RESULTS

The mean Harris-Benedict estimate was 1858.87 +/- 488.67 kcal/24 h when multiplied by an injury factor and a 10% activity factor. The mean energy expenditure values measured by indirect calorimetry were 1712.76 +/- 491.95 kcal/24 h for controlled and 1867.33 +/- 542.67 kcal/24 h for assisted ventilation. The mean total energy expenditure for assisted ventilation was 10.71% greater than the mean for controlled ventilation (P < .001). For controlled ventilation, Harris-Benedict results overestimated indirect calorimetry values by 141.10 +/- 10 kcal/24 h (8.2%, P = .012) when multiplied by injury and activity factors, and underestimated values by 44.28 +/- 28 kcal/24 h (2.6%, P = .399) when the equation was calculated without the activity factor. For assisted ventilation, Harris-Benedict results underestimated indirect calorimetry values by 198.84 +/- 84 kcal/24 h (10.7%, P = .001) when not multiplied by the activity factor and by 13.46 kcal/24 h (0.75%) when the activity factor was used, but differences were not statistically significant (P = .829).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that a 10% activity factor should be adopted only for assisted ventilation because multiplication by an activity factor may lead to overfeeding of patients on controlled ventilation.

摘要

背景

对于机械通气的重症监护病房(ICU)患者,合适的饮食对于避免过度喂养或喂养不足的并发症至关重要。每种通气模式下能量消耗的一致对比数据匮乏,这使得饮食处方变得复杂。本研究通过比较两种通气模式下估计的和测量的能量消耗值来评估热量需求。

方法

对100例接受辅助或控制机械通气的ICU患者,通过间接测热法测量其20分钟的能量消耗。计算24小时的能量消耗值,并与乘以损伤系数且乘以或不乘以10%活动系数的哈里斯-本尼迪克特估计值进行比较。

结果

乘以损伤系数和10%活动系数时,哈里斯-本尼迪克特平均估计值为1858.87±488.67千卡/24小时。间接测热法测得的控制通气的平均能量消耗值为1712.76±491.95千卡/24小时,辅助通气的为1867.33±542.67千卡/24小时。辅助通气的平均总能量消耗比控制通气的平均总能量消耗高10.71%(P<.001)。对于控制通气,乘以损伤和活动系数时,哈里斯-本尼迪克特结果比间接测热法值高估141.10±10千卡/24小时(8.2%,P=.012),而在计算方程时不乘以活动系数时低估44.28±28千卡/24小时(2.6%,P=.399)。对于辅助通气,不乘以活动系数时,哈里斯-本尼迪克特结果比间接测热法值低估198.84±84千卡/24小时(10.7%,P=.001),乘以活动系数时低估13.46千卡/24小时(0.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验