Shen T, Zhang L P, Wang Y R, Zhu Z K, Han C M
Rehabilitation Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, China.
Department of Burn and Wound Repair, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, China.
Zhonghua Shao Shang Yu Chuang Mian Xiu Fu Za Zhi. 2022 Aug 20;38(8):714-721. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20220530-00207.
To investigate the effect of sedation on resting energy expenditure (REE) in patients with extremely severe burns and the choice of REE estimation formula during the treatment. A retrospective non-randomized controlled clinical study was conducted. From April 2020 to April 2022, 21 patients with extremely severe burns who met the inclusion criteria and underwent mechanical ventilation treatment were admitted to the Department of Burn and Wound Repair of Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, including 16 males and 5 females, aged 60 (50, 69) years. Early anti-shock therapy, debridement, skin transplantation, nutritional support, and other conventional treatments were applied to all patients. Patients were sedated when they had obvious agitation or a tendency to extubate, which might lead to aggravation of the disease. REE measurement was performed on patients using indirect calorimetry on post-injury day 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14 and every 7 days thereafter until the patient died or being successfully weaned from ventilator. Totally 99 times of measurements were carried out, of which 58 times were measured in the sedated state of patients, and 41 times were measured in the non-sedated state of patients. The age, weight, body surface area, residual wound area, post-injury days of patients were recorded on the day when REE was measured (hereinafter briefly referred to as the measurement day). The REE on the measurement day was calculated with intensive care unit conventional REE estimation formula Thumb formula and special REE estimation formulas for burns including the Third Military Medical University formula, the Peng Xi team's linear formula, Hangang formula. The differences between the sedated state and the non-sedated state in the clinical materials, measured and formula calculated values of REE of patients on the measurement day were compared by Mann-Whitney test and independent sample test. The differences between the REE formula calculated values and the REE measured value (reflecting the overall consistency) in the sedated state were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess the individual consistency between the REE formula calculated value and the REE measured value in the sedated state, and to calculate the proportion of the REE formula calculated value within the range of ±10% of the REE measured value (hereinafter referred to as the accuracy rate). Root mean square error (RMSE) was used to evaluate the accuracy of the REE formula calculated value relative to the REE measured value. Compared with those in the non-sedated state, there was no statistically significant change in patient's age or post-injury days on the measurement day in the sedated state (>0.05), but the weight was heavier (=-3.58, <0.01), and both the body surface area and the residual wound area were larger (with values of -2.99 and -4.52, respectively, <0.01). Between the sedated state and the non-sedated state, the REE measured values of patients were similar (>0.05). Compared with those in the non-sedated state, the REE values of patients calculated by Thumb formula, the Third Military Medical University formula, the Peng Xi team's linear formula, and Hangang formula on the measurement day in the sedated state were significantly increased (with values of -3.58 and -5.70, values of -3.58 and -2.74, respectively, <0.01). In the sedated state, compared with the REE measured value, there were statistically significant changes in REE values of patients calculated by Thumb formula, the Third Military Medical University formula, and Hangang formula on the measurement day (with values of -2.13, -5.67, and -3.09, respectively, <0.05 or <0.01), while the REE value of patients calculated by the Peng Xi team's linear formula on the measurement day did not change significantly(>0.05). The analysis of the Bland-Altman method showed that in the sedated state, compared with the REE measured value, the individual consistency of the calculated value of each formula was good; Thumb formula and Hangang formula significantly underestimated the patients' REE value (with the average value of the difference between the formula calculated value and the measured value of -1 463 and -1 717 kJ/d, the 95% confidence interval of -2 491 to -434 and -2 744 to -687 kJ/d, respectively), but the individual differences were small; the Third Military Medical University formula significantly overestimated the patients' REE value (with the average value of the difference between the formula calculated value and the measured value of 3 530 kJ/d, the 95% confidence interval of 2 521 to 4 539 kJ/d), but the individual difference was small; the Peng Xi team's linear formula did not significantly overestimate the patients' REE value (with the average value of the difference between the formula calculated value and the measured value of 294 kJ/d, the 95% confidence interval of -907 to 1 496 kJ/d), while the difference standard deviation was 4 568 kJ/d, which showed a large individual difference. In the sedated state, relative to the REE measured value, the accuracy rates of REE values calculated by Thumb formula, the Third Military Medical University formula, the Peng Xi team's linear formula, and Hangang formula were 25.9% (15/58), 15.5% (9/58), 10.3% (6/58), and 15.5% (9/58), respectively, and RMSE values were 4 143.6, 5 189.1, 4 538.6, and 4 239.8 kJ/d, respectively. Sedative therapy leads to a significant decrease in REE in patients with extremely severe burns undergoing mechanical ventilation treatment. When REE cannot be regularly monitored by indirect calorimetry to determine nutritional support regimens, patients with extremely severe burns undergoing sedation may be prioritized to estimate REE using Thumb formula.
探讨镇静对特重度烧伤患者静息能量消耗(REE)的影响以及治疗期间REE估算公式的选择。进行了一项回顾性非随机对照临床研究。2020年4月至2022年4月,浙江大学医学院附属第二医院烧伤与创面修复科收治了21例符合纳入标准并接受机械通气治疗的特重度烧伤患者,其中男性16例,女性5例,年龄60(50,69)岁。所有患者均采用早期抗休克治疗、清创、皮肤移植、营养支持等常规治疗。患者出现明显躁动或有拔管倾向可能导致病情加重时进行镇静。于伤后第3、5、7、9、11、14天及此后每7天使用间接测热法对患者进行REE测量,直至患者死亡或成功脱机。共进行了99次测量,其中58次在患者镇静状态下测量,41次在患者非镇静状态下测量。在测量REE当天(以下简称测量日)记录患者的年龄、体重、体表面积、残余创面面积、伤后天数。采用重症监护病房常规REE估算公式拇指公式以及烧伤专用REE估算公式,包括第三军医大学公式、彭曦团队线性公式、邯钢公式,计算测量日的REE。采用Mann-Whitney检验和独立样本检验比较测量日患者镇静状态与非镇静状态下的临床资料、REE测量值及公式计算值的差异。采用Wilcoxon符号秩和检验比较镇静状态下REE公式计算值与REE测量值(反映总体一致性)的差异。采用Bland-Altman法评估镇静状态下REE公式计算值与REE测量值的个体一致性,并计算REE公式计算值在REE测量值±10%范围内的比例(以下简称准确率)。采用均方根误差(RMSE)评估REE公式计算值相对于REE测量值的准确性。与非镇静状态相比,镇静状态下测量日患者的年龄和伤后天数无统计学显著变化(P>0.05),但体重更重(P=-3.58,P<0.01),体表面积和残余创面面积均更大(P值分别为-2.99和-4.52,P<0.01)。镇静状态与非镇静状态下患者的REE测量值相似(P>0.05)。与非镇静状态相比,镇静状态下测量日患者采用拇指公式、第三军医大学公式彭曦团队线性公式和邯钢公式计算的REE值显著升高(P值分别为-3.58和-5.70,P值分别为-3.58和-2.74,P<0.01)。在镇静状态下,与REE测量值相比,测量日患者采用拇指公式、第三军医大学公式和邯钢公式计算的REE值有统计学显著变化(P值分别为-2.13、-5.67和-3.09,P<0.05或P<0.01),而测量日患者采用彭曦团队线性公式计算的REE值无显著变化(P>0.05)。Bland-Altman法分析显示,在镇静状态下,与REE测量值相比,各公式计算值的个体一致性良好;拇指公式和邯钢公式显著低估患者REE值(公式计算值与测量值差值的平均值分别为-1 463和-1 717 kJ/d,95%置信区间分别为-2 491至-434和-2 744至-687 kJ/d),但个体差异较小;第三军医大学公式显著高估患者REE值(公式计算值与测量值差值的平均值为3 530 kJ/d,95%置信区间为2 521至4 539 kJ/d),但个体差异较小;彭曦团队线性公式未显著高估患者REE值(公式计算值与测量值差值的平均值为294 kJ/d,95%置信区间为-907至1 496 kJ/d),而差异标准差为4 568 kJ/d,显示个体差异较大。在镇静状态下,相对于REE测量值,拇指公式、第三军医大学公式、彭曦团队线性公式和邯钢公式计算的REE值的准确率分别为25.9%(15/58)、15.5%(9/58)、10.3%(6/58)和15.5%(9/58),RMSE值分别为4 143.6、5 189.1、4 538.6和4 239.8 kJ/d。镇静治疗导致接受机械通气治疗的特重度烧伤患者REE显著降低。当无法通过间接测热法定期监测REE以确定营养支持方案时,接受镇静的特重度烧伤患者可优先使用拇指公式估算REE。