EE: Gas Collection Devices (2006)
What is the energy measurement difference when using different types of gas collection devices, such as facemask, mouthpieces with nose clips, or canopy (e.g., ventilated hood)?
Under rigorous control with no air leaks occurring, four studies of neutral design suggest comparable RMR measures in free-living adults can be achieved using either canopy, mouthpiece and nose clip, or facemask gas collection devices. However, in one neutral quality study, mean RMR was 7% higher for facemask and 9% higher for mouthpiece compared to canopy. Because of conflicting data and recent advances in technology, further studies comparing gas collection devices are needed, including in clinical populations.
The first 5 minutes of data should be discarded no matter which of the three collection devices are used.
- Grade I means there is Good/Strong evidence supporting the statement;
- Grade II is Fair;
- Grade III is Limited/Weak;
- Grade IV is Expert Opinion Only;
- Grade V is Not Assignable.
- High (A) means we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect;
- Moderate (B) means we are moderately confident in the effect estimate;
- Low (C) means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited;
- Very Low (D) means we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.
- Ungraded means a grade is not assignable.
Evidence Summary: What is the energy measurement difference when using different types of gas collection devices, such as facemask, mouthpieces with nose clips, or canopy (e.g., ventilated hood)?
- Quality Rating Summary
For a summary of the Quality Rating results, click here.
- Askanazi J, Silverberg PA, Foster RJ, Hyman AI, Milic-Emili J, Kinna JM. Effects of respiratory apparatus on breathing pattern. J Appl Physiol. (Respir Environ Exercise Physiol). 1980;48:577-580.
- Forse RA. Comparison of gas exchange measurements with a mouthpiece, face mask, and ventilated canopy. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 1993;17:388-391.
- Igawa S, Sakamaki M, Miyazaki M. Examination of the reliability of the portable calorimeter. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2002; 29(Suppl 4): S13-15.
- Isbell TR, Klesges RC, Meyers AW, Klesges LM. Measurement reliability and reactivity using repeated measurements of resting energy expenditure with a face mask, mouthpiece and ventilated canopy. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 1991; 15 (2): 165-168.
- McAnena OJ, Harvey LP, Katzeff HL, Daly JM. Indirect calorimetry: Comparison of hood and mask systems for measuring resting energy expenditure in healthy volunteers. J Parenter Enteral Nutri. 1986; 10: 555-557.
- McClave SA, Snider HL. Use of indirect calorimetry in clinical nutrition. Nutr Clin Pract. 1992; 7: 207-221.
- Schols AMWJ, Schoffelen PFM, Ceulemans H, Wouters EFM, Saris WHM. Measurement of resting energy expenditure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a clinical setting. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1992; 16(4): 364-368.
- Segal KR. Comparison of indirect calorimetric measurements of resting energy expenditure with a ventilated hood, face mask, and mouthpiece. Am J Clin Nutr 1987;45:1420-1423. (Not used in Conclusion Statement Grade)
- Weissman C, Kemper M. Metabolic measurements in the critically ill. Crit Care Clin. 1995; 11(1): 169-197.