Energy expenditure in COVID-19 mechanically ventilated patients: A comparison of three methods of energy estimation.

Abstract

BackgroundIndirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard for measuring resting energy expenditure. Energy expenditure (EE) estimated by ventilator‐derived carbon dioxide consumption (EEVCO2) has also been proposed. In the absence of IC, predictive weight‐based equations have been recommended to estimate daily energy requirements. This study aims to compare simple predictive weight‐based equations with those estimated by EEVCO2 and IC in mechanically ventilated patients of COVID‐19.MethodsRetrospective study of a cohort of critically ill adult patients with COVID‐19 requiring mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition to compare energy estimations by three methods through the calculation of bias and precision agreement, reliability, and accuracy rates.ResultsIn 58 mechanically ventilated patients, a total of 117 paired measurements were obtained. The mean estimated energy derived from weight‐based calculations was 2576 ± 469 kcal/24 h, as compared with 1507 ± 499 kcal/24 h when EE was estimated by IC, resulting in a significant bias of 1069 kcal/day (95% CI [−2158 to 18.7 kcal]; P < 0.001). Similarly, estimated mean EEVCO2 was 1388 ± 467 kcal/24 h when compared with estimation of EE from IC. A significant bias of only 118 kcal/day (95% CI [−187 to 422 kcal]; P < 0.001), compared by the Bland‐Altman plot, was noted.ConclusionThe energy estimated with EEVCO2 correlated better with IC values than energy derived from weight‐based calculations. Our data suggest that the use of simple predictive equations may potentially lead to overfeeding in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID‐19.