Indirect calorimetry in canopy mode in healthy subjects: performances of the Q-NRG device compared to the Deltatrac II.

IF 1.3 4区医学 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY

Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.51821/88.1.13301

M Fadeur, J F Kaux, J De Flines, B Misset, N Paquot, A F Rousseau

{"title":"Indirect calorimetry in canopy mode in healthy subjects: performances of the Q-NRG device compared to the Deltatrac II.","authors":"M Fadeur, J F Kaux, J De Flines, B Misset, N Paquot, A F Rousseau","doi":"10.51821/88.1.13301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Extensive validation of the Q-NRG indirect calorimeter in canopy mode, especially against reference devices, is lacking. The aim of this study was to test its agreement in canopy mode with the Deltratrac II, which has always been considered as the gold standard indirect calorimeter in daily practice.Methods: Healthy volunteers underwent indirect calorimetry with two consecutive assessments, using Q-NRG and Deltatrac II, both in canopy mode, in a random order, after careful calibrations. Body position, fasting conditions and environment were standardized. Agreement between the two devices was evaluated by paired Student's t test, correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots.Results: Sixty-one adults (85.2% male, aged 25.7±8.4 y, BMI 23.3±2.9 kg/m2) were included. Measured energy expenditure was similar whether it was measured using Q-NRG or Deltatrac II: 1816±361 kcal/day or 1809±260 kcal/day (p=0.803), respectively. There was a significant positive correlation between the two measures (ρ=0.78, p= <0.01). The Q-NRG slightly overestimated the energy expenditure compared to the Deltatrac II measure: the bias ± limits of agreement was 7 ± 227 kcal/day.Conclusion: In healthy volunteers breathing spontaneously, the Q-NRG in canopy mode performed similarly to the Deltatrac II for energy expenditure measurement. The present study confirms the previously demonstrated accuracy of the Q-NRG device, and supports its clinical use in canopy mode.","PeriodicalId":7322,"journal":{"name":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","volume":"88 1","pages":"13-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51821/88.1.13301","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Extensive validation of the Q-NRG indirect calorimeter in canopy mode, especially against reference devices, is lacking. The aim of this study was to test its agreement in canopy mode with the Deltratrac II, which has always been considered as the gold standard indirect calorimeter in daily practice.

Methods: Healthy volunteers underwent indirect calorimetry with two consecutive assessments, using Q-NRG and Deltatrac II, both in canopy mode, in a random order, after careful calibrations. Body position, fasting conditions and environment were standardized. Agreement between the two devices was evaluated by paired Student's t test, correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots.

Results: Sixty-one adults (85.2% male, aged 25.7±8.4 y, BMI 23.3±2.9 kg/m2) were included. Measured energy expenditure was similar whether it was measured using Q-NRG or Deltatrac II: 1816±361 kcal/day or 1809±260 kcal/day (p=0.803), respectively. There was a significant positive correlation between the two measures (ρ=0.78, p= <0.01). The Q-NRG slightly overestimated the energy expenditure compared to the Deltatrac II measure: the bias ± limits of agreement was 7 ± 227 kcal/day.

Conclusion: In healthy volunteers breathing spontaneously, the Q-NRG in canopy mode performed similarly to the Deltatrac II for energy expenditure measurement. The present study confirms the previously demonstrated accuracy of the Q-NRG device, and supports its clinical use in canopy mode.

查看原文本刊更多论文

背景：Q-NRG 间接热量计在天幕模式下的广泛验证，尤其是与参考设备的对比，尚属空白。本研究的目的是测试 Q-NRG 间接热量计在顶棚模式下与 Deltratrac II 间接热量计的一致性，后者一直被认为是日常使用的金标准间接热量计。方法：健康志愿者在经过仔细校准后，使用 Q-NRG 和 Deltatrac II 进行了两次连续的间接热量测量，均采用顶棚模式，顺序随机。体位、空腹条件和环境均已标准化。通过配对学生 t 检验、相关系数和 Bland-Altman 图评估两种设备之间的一致性：共纳入 61 名成年人（85.2% 为男性，年龄为 25.7±8.4 岁，体重指数为 23.3±2.9 kg/m2）。无论是使用 Q-NRG 还是 Deltatrac II 测量的能量消耗都相似：分别为 1816±361 千卡/天或 1809±260 千卡/天（P=0.803）。这两个测量值之间存在明显的正相关性（ρ=0.78，p= 结论）：对于自主呼吸的健康志愿者，Q-NRG 在天幕模式下与 Deltatrac II 在能量消耗测量方面的表现相似。本研究证实了 Q-NRG 设备之前所证明的准确性，并支持其在天幕模式下的临床应用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Acta gastro-enterologica Belgica Medicine-Gastroenterology

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

20.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica principally publishes peer-reviewed original manuscripts, reviews, letters to editors, book reviews and guidelines in the field of clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, including digestive oncology, digestive pathology, as well as nutrition. Pure animal or in vitro work will not be considered for publication in the Journal. Translational research papers (including sections of animal or in vitro work) are considered by the Journal if they have a clear relationship to or relevance for clinical hepato-gastroenterology (screening, disease mechanisms and/or new therapies). Case reports and clinical images will be accepted if they represent an important contribution to the description, the pathogenesis or the treatment of a specific gastroenterology or liver problem. The language of the Journal is English. Papers from any country will be considered for publication. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal should not have been published previously (in English or any other language), nor should they be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Unsolicited papers are peer-reviewed before it is decided whether they should be accepted, rejected, or returned for revision. Manuscripts that do not meet the presentation criteria (as indicated below) will be returned to the authors. Papers that go too far beyond the scope of the journal will be also returned to the authors by the editorial board generally within 2 weeks. The Journal reserves the right to edit the language of papers accepted for publication for clarity and correctness, and to make formal changes to ensure compliance with AGEB’s style. Authors have the opportunity to review such changes in the proofs.