↓ Skip to main content

Resting energy expenditure, calorie and protein consumption in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
287 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
363 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Resting energy expenditure, calorie and protein consumption in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1538-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oren Zusman, Miriam Theilla, Jonathan Cohen, Ilya Kagan, Itai Bendavid, Pierre Singer

Abstract

Intense debate exists regarding the optimal energy and protein intake for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, most studies use predictive equations, demonstrated to be inaccurate to target energy intake. We sought to examine the outcome of a large cohort of ICU patients in relation to the percent of administered calories divided by resting energy expenditure (% AdCal/REE) obtained by indirect calorimetry (IC) and to protein intake. Included patients were hospitalized from 2003 to 2015 at a 16-bed ICU at a university affiliated, tertiary care hospital, and had IC measurement to assess caloric targets. Data were drawn from a computerized system and included the % AdCal/REE and protein intake and other variables. A Cox proportional hazards model for 60-day mortality was used, with the % AdCal/REE modeled to accommodate non-linearity. Length of stay (LOS) and length of ventilation (LOV) were also assessed. A total of 1171 patients were included. The % AdCal/REE had a significant non-linear (p < 0.01) association with mortality after adjusting for other variables (p < 0.01). Increasing the percentage from zero to 70 % resulted in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.98 (CI 0.97-0.99) pointing to reduced mortality, while increases above 70 % suggested an increase in mortality with a HR of 1.01 (CI 1.01-1.02). Increasing protein intake was also associated with decreased mortality (HR 0.99, CI 0.98-0.99, p = 0.02). An AdCal/REE >70 % was associated with an increased LOS and LOV. The findings of this study suggest that both underfeeding and overfeeding appear to be harmful to critically ill patients, such that achieving an Adcal/REE of 70 % had a survival advantage. A higher caloric intake may also be associated with harm in the form of increased LOS and LOV. The optimal way to define caloric goals therefore requires an exact estimate, which is ideally performed using indirect calorimetry. These findings may provide a basis for future randomized controlled trials comparing specific nutritional regimens based on indirect calorimetry measurements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 362 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 12%
Student > Master 40 11%
Other 33 9%
Student > Bachelor 28 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 6%
Other 65 18%
Unknown 134 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 1%
Other 25 7%
Unknown 144 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 147. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2020.
All research outputs
#282,513
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#137
of 6,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,480
of 319,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.