Comparison of energy expenditure measurements by a new basic respiratory room vs. classical ventilated hood

新型基础呼吸室与传统通风罩的能量消耗测量结果比较

阅读:16
作者:Timia Van Soom, Wiebren Tjalma, Ulrike Van Daele, Nick Gebruers #, Eric van Breda #

Background

Nutritional support is often based on predicted resting energy expenditure (REE). In patients, predictions seem invalid. Indirect calorimetry is the gold standard for measuring EE. For assessments over longer periods (up to days), room calorimeters are used. Their design makes their use cumbersome, and warrants improvements to increase utility. Current study aims to compare data on momentary EE, obtained by a basic respiration room vs. classical ventilated hood. The

Conclusion

The room is valid for assessing momentary EE. Minute changes in activity lead to a non-significant increase in EE and significant increase in RER. The significant difference in [Formula: see text] CO2 for hood might be related to perceived comfort. More research is necessary on determinants of RER, type (intensity) of activity, and restlessness. The design of the room facilitates metabolic measurements in research, with promising results for future clinical use.

Methods

Two protocols (P1; P2)(n = 62; 25 men/37 women) were applied. When measured by hood, participants in both protocols were in complete rest (supine position). When assessed by room, participants in P1 were instructed to stay half-seated while performing light desk work; in P2 participants were in complete rest mimicking hood conditions. The Omnical calorimeter operated both modalities. Following data were collected/calculated: Oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text] O2(ml/min)), carbon dioxide production ([Formula: see text] CO2ml/min), 24h_EE (kcal/min), and respiratory exchange ratio (RER). Statistical analyses were done between modalities and between protocols. The agreement between 24h_EE, [Formula: see text] O2 and [Formula: see text] CO2 obtained by both modalities was investigated by linear regression. Reliability analysis on 24h_EE determined ICC.

Results

No significant differences were found for 24h_EE and [Formula: see text] O2. [Formula: see text] CO2 significantly differed in P1 + P2, and P2 (hood > room). RER was significantly different (hood > room) for P1 + P2 and both protocols individually. Reliability of 24h_EE between modalities was high. Modality-specific results were not different between protocols.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。