Suppr超能文献

儿科重症监护病房儿童的静息能量消耗:Harris-Benedict和Talbot预测值与间接测热法值的比较。

Resting energy expenditure in children in a pediatric intensive care unit: comparison of Harris-Benedict and Talbot predictions with indirect calorimetry values.

作者信息

Coss-Bu J A, Jefferson L S, Walding D, David Y, Smith E O, Klish W J

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA.

出版信息

Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Jan;67(1):74-80. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/67.1.74.

Abstract

The use of prediction equations has been recommended for calculating energy expenditure. We evaluated two equations that predict energy expenditure, each of which were corrected for two different stress factors, and compared the values obtained with those calculated by indirect calorimetry. The subjects were 55 critically ill children on mechanical ventilation. Basal metabolic rates were calculated with the Harris-Benedict and Talbot methods. Measured resting energy expenditure was 4.72 +/- 2.53 MJ/d. The average difference between measured resting energy expenditure and the Harris-Benedict prediction with a stress factor of 1.5 was -0.98 MJ/d, with an SD delta of 1.56 MJ/d and limits of agreement from -4.12 to 2.15; for a stress factor of 1.3 the average difference was -0.22 MJ/d, with an SD delta of 1.57 MJ/d and limits of agreement from -3.37 to 2.93. The average difference between measured resting energy expenditure and the Talbot prediction with a stress factor of 1.5 was -0.23 MJ/d, with an SD delta of 1.36 MJ/d and limits of agreement from -2.95 to 2.48; for a stress factor of 1.3, it was 0.42 MJ/d, with an SD delta of 1.24 MJ/d and limits of agreement from -2.04 to 2.92. These limits of agreement indicate large differences in energy expenditure between the measured value and the prediction estimated for some patients. Therefore, neither the Harris-Benedict nor the Talbot method will predict resting energy expenditure with acceptable precision for clinical use. Indirect calorimetry appears to be the only useful way of determining resting energy expenditure in these patients.

摘要

推荐使用预测方程来计算能量消耗。我们评估了两个预测能量消耗的方程,每个方程针对两种不同的应激因素进行了校正,并将所得值与间接量热法计算的值进行了比较。研究对象为55名接受机械通气的危重症儿童。采用Harris-Benedict法和Talbot法计算基础代谢率。测得的静息能量消耗为4.72±2.53MJ/d。测得的静息能量消耗与应激因素为1.5时的Harris-Benedict预测值之间的平均差值为-0.98MJ/d,标准差δ为1.56MJ/d,一致性界限为-4.12至2.15;应激因素为1.3时,平均差值为-0.22MJ/d,标准差δ为1.57MJ/d,一致性界限为-3.37至2.93。测得的静息能量消耗与应激因素为1.5时的Talbot预测值之间的平均差值为-0.23MJ/d,标准差δ为1.36MJ/d,一致性界限为-2.95至2.48;应激因素为1.3时,平均差值为0.42MJ/d,标准差δ为1.24MJ/d,一致性界限为-2.04至2.92。这些一致性界限表明,对于一些患者,测量值与预测值之间的能量消耗存在较大差异。因此,Harris-Benedict法和Talbot法均不能以可接受的精度预测静息能量消耗以供临床使用。间接量热法似乎是确定这些患者静息能量消耗的唯一有用方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验