Comparing indirect calorimetry and predictive equations for energy expenditure - 1 year follow-up of adult hematopoietic stem cell transplanted recipients.

IF 2.6 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS
Anne Marte Gudmundstuen, Per Ole Iversen, Maiju Pesonen, Marianne J Hjermstad, Asta Bye, Geir E Tjønnfjord, Kristin J Skaarud
{"title":"Comparing indirect calorimetry and predictive equations for energy expenditure - 1 year follow-up of adult hematopoietic stem cell transplanted recipients.","authors":"Anne Marte Gudmundstuen, Per Ole Iversen, Maiju Pesonen, Marianne J Hjermstad, Asta Bye, Geir E Tjønnfjord, Kristin J Skaarud","doi":"10.1016/j.clnesp.2025.09.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) often undergo body composition changes that may impact their energy expenditure (EE), however, the accurate energy requirements may be difficult to estimate. Indirect calorimetry (IC) is recommended as the gold standard to assess measured energy expenditure (mEE), but its use is resource-demanding and thus rarely applied compared to predictive energy equations. Here we evaluated the agreement between mEE by IC and EE estimated by several predictive energy equations, or the ESPEN recommendation, during 1-year follow-up of adult allo-HSCT recipients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examined 117 adult patients with hematological malignancies who received allo-HSCT. mEE was assessed by IC in non-fasting patients before transplantation, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-allo-HSCT. Agreement between mEE and predictive values using the Harris-Benedict-HB, Mifflin St. Jeor-MSJ, Ireton Jones-IJ equations and the fixed ESPEN recommendation of 25 kcal/kg/day was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and accuracy within ± 10%. Changes in mEE over time were analyzed using linear mixed model with age as a covariate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 509 mEE measurements by IC were obtained. HB and MSJ overestimated mEE on average (mean bias: + 2.9 and + 3.8 kcal/kg/day), while IJ, and the fixed ESPEN recommendation underestimated mEE (biases: - 0.7 and - 4.7 kcal/kg/day, respectively). None of the equations or the fixed ESPEN recommendation achieved > 50% accuracy within ± 10% of mEE by IC. IJ had the highest variability and widest limits of agreement. mEE changed significantly over time (p < 0.001), with no significant differences between the initially randomized intervention and control group (p = 0.982). Mean mREE was 24.74 ± 3.80 kcal/kg/day and 31.14 ± 4.91 kcal/kg/day when adjusted for FFM. Age was not significantly associated with mREE (p = 0.198).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that commonly used predictive equations and the fixed ESPEN recommendation showed limited accuracy compared with mEE in allo-HSCT recipients. Only mEE obtained by IC captured longitudinal changes in EE during the first year post-transplantation. mEE by IC varied significantly the first year post-transplant.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov, ID NCT01181076.</p>","PeriodicalId":10352,"journal":{"name":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical nutrition ESPEN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2025.09.027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) often undergo body composition changes that may impact their energy expenditure (EE), however, the accurate energy requirements may be difficult to estimate. Indirect calorimetry (IC) is recommended as the gold standard to assess measured energy expenditure (mEE), but its use is resource-demanding and thus rarely applied compared to predictive energy equations. Here we evaluated the agreement between mEE by IC and EE estimated by several predictive energy equations, or the ESPEN recommendation, during 1-year follow-up of adult allo-HSCT recipients.

Methods: We examined 117 adult patients with hematological malignancies who received allo-HSCT. mEE was assessed by IC in non-fasting patients before transplantation, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-allo-HSCT. Agreement between mEE and predictive values using the Harris-Benedict-HB, Mifflin St. Jeor-MSJ, Ireton Jones-IJ equations and the fixed ESPEN recommendation of 25 kcal/kg/day was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and accuracy within ± 10%. Changes in mEE over time were analyzed using linear mixed model with age as a covariate.

Results: A total of 509 mEE measurements by IC were obtained. HB and MSJ overestimated mEE on average (mean bias: + 2.9 and + 3.8 kcal/kg/day), while IJ, and the fixed ESPEN recommendation underestimated mEE (biases: - 0.7 and - 4.7 kcal/kg/day, respectively). None of the equations or the fixed ESPEN recommendation achieved > 50% accuracy within ± 10% of mEE by IC. IJ had the highest variability and widest limits of agreement. mEE changed significantly over time (p < 0.001), with no significant differences between the initially randomized intervention and control group (p = 0.982). Mean mREE was 24.74 ± 3.80 kcal/kg/day and 31.14 ± 4.91 kcal/kg/day when adjusted for FFM. Age was not significantly associated with mREE (p = 0.198).

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that commonly used predictive equations and the fixed ESPEN recommendation showed limited accuracy compared with mEE in allo-HSCT recipients. Only mEE obtained by IC captured longitudinal changes in EE during the first year post-transplantation. mEE by IC varied significantly the first year post-transplant.

Clinicaltrials: gov, ID NCT01181076.

比较间接量热法和能量消耗预测方程-成人造血干细胞移植受体1年随访。
背景和目的:同种异体造血干细胞移植(allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, alloo - hsct)的受者经常经历可能影响其能量消耗(EE)的身体成分变化,然而,准确的能量需求可能难以估计。间接量热法(IC)被推荐为评估测量能量消耗(mEE)的金标准,但它的使用需要资源,因此与预测能量方程相比很少应用。在此,我们评估了在1年的成人同种异体造血干细胞移植接受者随访期间,由IC估算的mEE和由几个预测能量方程估算的EE或ESPEN推荐值之间的一致性。方法:我们检查了117例接受同种异体造血干细胞移植的成年恶性血液病患者。在移植前和移植后3、6、9和12个月,非禁食患者通过IC评估mEE。使用Bland-Altman分析评估mEE与使用Harris-Benedict-HB、Mifflin St. Jeor-MSJ、Ireton Jones-IJ方程和固定的ESPEN推荐值25 kcal/kg/day的预测值之间的一致性,准确度在±10%以内。使用以年龄为协变量的线性混合模型分析mEE随时间的变化。结果:共获得了509个mEE测量值。HB和MSJ平均高估了mEE(平均偏差:+ 2.9和+ 3.8千卡/千克/天),而IJ和固定ESPEN推荐低估了mEE(偏差分别为- 0.7和- 4.7千卡/千克/天)。没有一个方程或固定的ESPEN推荐在IC的mEE的±10%以内达到bb50 %的准确度。IJ具有最高的变异性和最广泛的一致性限制。mEE随时间变化显著(p < 0.001),初始随机干预组与对照组无显著差异(p = 0.982)。经FFM调整后,平均mREE为24.74±3.80 kcal/kg/day, 31.14±4.91 kcal/kg/day。年龄与mREE无显著相关(p = 0.198)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,在同种异体造血干细胞移植受者中,常用的预测方程和固定的ESPEN推荐与mEE相比准确性有限。只有通过IC获得的mEE捕获了移植后第一年EE的纵向变化。移植后第一年,IC的mEE差异显著。临床试验:gov, ID NCT01181076。
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
Clinical nutrition ESPEN
Clinical nutrition ESPEN NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.30%
发文量
512
期刊介绍: Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is an electronic-only journal and is an official publication of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). Nutrition and nutritional care have gained wide clinical and scientific interest during the past decades. The increasing knowledge of metabolic disturbances and nutritional assessment in chronic and acute diseases has stimulated rapid advances in design, development and clinical application of nutritional support. The aims of ESPEN are to encourage the rapid diffusion of knowledge and its application in the field of clinical nutrition and metabolism. Published bimonthly, Clinical Nutrition ESPEN focuses on publishing articles on the relationship between nutrition and disease in the setting of basic science and clinical practice. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN is available to all members of ESPEN and to all subscribers of Clinical Nutrition.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信