Table 1 Comparison between an indirect calorimetry and the Harris-Benedict equation
From: Strategies for optimal calorie administration in critically ill patients
Author, year | Design No. of Hosp. | No. of Pt. | Type of patients | Age (years) | BMI (kg/m2) | Weight (kg) | APACHE II | SOFA | IC (kcal/day) (kcal/kg/day) | HBE (kcal/day) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Picolo et al. 2016 [18] | Prospective 1 | 205 | Surgical 15% Sepsis 44% | 54 | 18.5–24.9 42% 25.0–29.9 28% | 71 | 24 | NA | 1430 NA | 1463 |
Sabatino et al. 2017 [20] | Prospective 2 | 42 | KDIGO stage 3 Surgical 52% | 67 ± 15 | 29 ± 9 | 83 ± 26 | 22 ± 7 | NA | 1724 ± 431 NA | 1582 ± 335 |
de Goes et al. 2016 [21] | Prospective 1 | 125 | AKIN-3 Sepsis 89% | 63 ± 17 | 28 ± 8 | NA | 29 ± 5 | NA | 2029 ± 760 NA | 1501 ± 327 |
Panitchote et al. 2017 [22] | Prospective 1 | 16 | Severe sepsis Septic shock | 72 ± 6 | 22 ± 3 | NA | 27 ± 4 | NA | 1488 ± 261 26.7 ± 5.3 | 2259 ± 305* |
Tignanelli et al. 2017 [23] | Prospective** 1 | 419 | Surgical 100% | > 60 42% | 18.5–24.9 25% 25.0–29.9 30% | NA | NA | NA | 1837 ± 547 NA | 1894 ± 354 |
Yatabe et al. 2014 [24] | Retrospective 1 | 15 | Esophagectomy 100% | 66 ± 10 | 22 ± 4 | 55 ± 10 | 13 ± 4 | 2 ± 1 | 985 ± 167 18.1 ± 3.4 | 1191 ± 159 |
De Waele et al. 2018 [25] | Prospective 1 | 7 | ECMO Surgical 29% | 64 [60, 77] | 26 [25, 27] | 78 [68, 90] | 19 [13, 23] | NA | 1334 21 | NA |
Segadilha et al. 2017 [26] | Retrospective 1 | 97 | Elderly Surgical 28% | 78 ± 9 | 27 ± 7 | NA | NA | NA | 1568 ± 374 M 22.6 ± 4.7 F 21.4 ± 5.1 | (kcal/kg/day)*** M 22.4 ± 2.2 F 22.1 ± 3.0 |
Hickmann et al. 2014 [27] | Prospective 1 | 49 | Sepsis 63% | 53–71 | NA | NA | 15–22 | 5–11 | 1849 ± 546 NA | 1433 ± 230 |