2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)幸存者静息能量消耗预测方程的准确性

Montserrat Montes-Ibarra , Camila L.P. Oliveira , Taiwo Olobatuyi , Maria Cristina Gonzalez , Richard Thompson , D. Ian Paterson , Carla M. Prado
{"title":"2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)幸存者静息能量消耗预测方程的准确性","authors":"Montserrat Montes-Ibarra ,&nbsp;Camila L.P. Oliveira ,&nbsp;Taiwo Olobatuyi ,&nbsp;Maria Cristina Gonzalez ,&nbsp;Richard Thompson ,&nbsp;D. Ian Paterson ,&nbsp;Carla M. Prado","doi":"10.1016/j.nutos.2024.10.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background &amp; Aims</h3><div>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with abnormal energy metabolism and lead to inaccurate resting energy expenditure (REE) estimations by predictive equations. Here, we report measured REE (mREE) of a group of COVID-19 survivors and compared its accuracy against predicted REE (pREE).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a cross-sectional analysis of patients who survived COVID-19 prior to July 2021. An indirect calorimeter was used for mREE and compared against 21 pREE equations, 10 of which used a measure of body composition. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis were used to evaluate agreement and relative accuracy or bias for percentage error between pREE and mREE; measurements within ±10% were considered accurate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We assessed 38 COVID-19 survivors; age: 48.5y (interquartile range: 40.2, 60.0), body mass index: 29.3±5.6 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, mREE: 1520± 275 kcal/d, time since COVID-19: 183.2 ±34.4 days. Ten (47.6%) pREE equations were significantly different from mREE (<em>P</em> &lt;0.05). Harris-Benedict equation had the smallest limits of agreement, ranging from -14.3% to 25.8% (or -249 to 393 kcal/d). Mifflin St-Jeor was the most accurate equation (within 10% of mREE). The best performing equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) still over or under-estimated pREE in ∼37% of the patients.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>A large variability in mREE versus pREE was observed in COVID-19 survivors. Even the most accurate equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) exhibited higher inaccuracies compared to mREE. We need to explore better methods to estimate energy requirements during the COVID-19 recovery period, until more accurate predictive equations are developed this population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36134,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Nutrition Open Science","volume":"58 ","pages":"Pages 175-182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of resting energy expenditure predictive equations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors\",\"authors\":\"Montserrat Montes-Ibarra ,&nbsp;Camila L.P. Oliveira ,&nbsp;Taiwo Olobatuyi ,&nbsp;Maria Cristina Gonzalez ,&nbsp;Richard Thompson ,&nbsp;D. Ian Paterson ,&nbsp;Carla M. Prado\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.nutos.2024.10.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background &amp; Aims</h3><div>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with abnormal energy metabolism and lead to inaccurate resting energy expenditure (REE) estimations by predictive equations. Here, we report measured REE (mREE) of a group of COVID-19 survivors and compared its accuracy against predicted REE (pREE).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a cross-sectional analysis of patients who survived COVID-19 prior to July 2021. An indirect calorimeter was used for mREE and compared against 21 pREE equations, 10 of which used a measure of body composition. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis were used to evaluate agreement and relative accuracy or bias for percentage error between pREE and mREE; measurements within ±10% were considered accurate.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We assessed 38 COVID-19 survivors; age: 48.5y (interquartile range: 40.2, 60.0), body mass index: 29.3±5.6 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, mREE: 1520± 275 kcal/d, time since COVID-19: 183.2 ±34.4 days. Ten (47.6%) pREE equations were significantly different from mREE (<em>P</em> &lt;0.05). Harris-Benedict equation had the smallest limits of agreement, ranging from -14.3% to 25.8% (or -249 to 393 kcal/d). Mifflin St-Jeor was the most accurate equation (within 10% of mREE). The best performing equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) still over or under-estimated pREE in ∼37% of the patients.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>A large variability in mREE versus pREE was observed in COVID-19 survivors. Even the most accurate equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) exhibited higher inaccuracies compared to mREE. We need to explore better methods to estimate energy requirements during the COVID-19 recovery period, until more accurate predictive equations are developed this population.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Nutrition Open Science\",\"volume\":\"58 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 175-182\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Nutrition Open Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667268524001025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Nutrition Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667268524001025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景& 目的2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)可能与能量代谢异常有关,并导致预测方程对静息能量消耗(REE)的估计不准确。在此,我们报告了一组 COVID-19 幸存者的测量 REE(mREE),并将其准确性与预测 REE(pREE)进行了比较。使用间接热量计计算 mREE,并与 21 种 pREE 方程进行比较,其中 10 种使用了身体成分测量方法。使用配对 t 检验和 Bland-Altman 分析来评估 pREE 和 mREE 之间的一致性以及百分比误差的相对准确性或偏差;测量结果在 ±10% 以内视为准确:体重指数:29.3±5.6 kg/m2,mREE:1520±275 kcal/d,自 COVID-19 后的时间:183.2 ±34.4 天:183.2±34.4天。10个(47.6%)pREE方程与 mREE 有显著差异(P <0.05)。哈里斯-本尼迪克特方程的一致性范围最小,从-14.3%到25.8%(或-249到393千卡/天)不等。Mifflin St-Jeor 是最准确的方程(mREE 的 10%以内)。结论 在 COVID-19 存活者中观察到 mREE 与 pREE 之间存在很大差异。即使是最准确的方程(Mifflin St-Jeor)也显示出比 mREE 更高的不准确性。我们需要探索更好的方法来估算 COVID-19 恢复期的能量需求,直到开发出更准确的预测公式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accuracy of resting energy expenditure predictive equations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors

Background & Aims

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with abnormal energy metabolism and lead to inaccurate resting energy expenditure (REE) estimations by predictive equations. Here, we report measured REE (mREE) of a group of COVID-19 survivors and compared its accuracy against predicted REE (pREE).

Methods

This was a cross-sectional analysis of patients who survived COVID-19 prior to July 2021. An indirect calorimeter was used for mREE and compared against 21 pREE equations, 10 of which used a measure of body composition. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analysis were used to evaluate agreement and relative accuracy or bias for percentage error between pREE and mREE; measurements within ±10% were considered accurate.

Results

We assessed 38 COVID-19 survivors; age: 48.5y (interquartile range: 40.2, 60.0), body mass index: 29.3±5.6 kg/m2, mREE: 1520± 275 kcal/d, time since COVID-19: 183.2 ±34.4 days. Ten (47.6%) pREE equations were significantly different from mREE (P <0.05). Harris-Benedict equation had the smallest limits of agreement, ranging from -14.3% to 25.8% (or -249 to 393 kcal/d). Mifflin St-Jeor was the most accurate equation (within 10% of mREE). The best performing equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) still over or under-estimated pREE in ∼37% of the patients.

Conclusion

A large variability in mREE versus pREE was observed in COVID-19 survivors. Even the most accurate equation (Mifflin St-Jeor) exhibited higher inaccuracies compared to mREE. We need to explore better methods to estimate energy requirements during the COVID-19 recovery period, until more accurate predictive equations are developed this population.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Nutrition Open Science
Clinical Nutrition Open Science Nursing-Nutrition and Dietetics
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Beneficial effects of probiotics to flatten the curve of COVID-19 pandemic: A review Religious intermittent fasting: Effects on liver health, metabolic markers, and gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes patients Experiences among patients with short bowel syndrome and their caregivers: Insights from targeted forums The effect of resveratrol on the viability of rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells Toxicological and histopathological effects of sodium benzoate used in commercially available fruit juice on liver and kidney tissue in mice model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1