EE: Rest Periods (2006)
The intrinsic state of the patient (sleeping, resting, moving, etc) as well as routine daily therapeutic and diagnostic interventions can affect IC measurements used to plan nutritional regimens, as well as to evaluate metabolic state.
The objectives of this study were:
- To examine the alterations in metabolic (oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) and hemodynamic (heart rate and blood pressure) parameters caused by various common intensive care unit (ICU) activities in a group of mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients.
- These data can be used to define a baseline metabolic state for use in the calculation of caloric requirements and
- For use in both intrapatient and interpatient comparisons
To do this, 23 post-operative, mechanically-ventilated patients were studied on 36 occasions.
Definitions
- “Sleeping”—state where the patient was not aroused by surrounding events
- “Resting”—lying motionless with eyes open responding to surrounding events
- “Activity”—Movement of body and limbs, chest physical therapy, a physical examination, having a bath, having visitors, having medical procedures.
- Postoperative patients
- Mechanically ventilated
- Hemodynamically stable
- Not comatose
- Located in the Surgical-Anesthesiology Intensive Care Unit
- Diseases in subjects that were allowed: not clear; just states patients were postoperative and critically ill
- Medications allowed: only states that one patient was heavily sedated (morphine) during part of the study period
- Comatose patients
- Not meeting inclusion criteria
- Diseases in subjects that were excluded:
- Medications excluded:
Metabolic and hemodynamic measurements were performed every 15 minutes during the 4-8 hours of each study.
If warranted, measurements were performed more often.
These measurements were correlated with observations of the patient and his/her environment.
ANTHROPOMETRIC
- Ht measured? not discussed
- Wt measured? not discussed
- Fat-free mass measured? not discussed
CLINICAL
- Monitored heart rate? Yes; continuously
- Blood pressure (BP)? Yes, continuously
- Body temperature? Not discussed
- Medications administered? Mentioned that one patient was heavily sedated at one point with morphine; affected VO2 and VCO2 than when unsedated
- Ventilator? Constant FIO2 and patients were ventilated with inspired oxygen concentrations between 0.35 and 0.45
OBSERVATIONAL
- Activity state? Monitored continuously
Metabolic Rate
The VO2, VCO2 and respiratory quotient (RQ) were measured using:
- IC type: Beckman Metabolic Measurement Cart I; accuracy of cart was validated by Darnask et al.
- Calibration: the O2 and CO2 analyzers, as well as the volume tranducers, were calibrated before each measurement
- Rest before measure (state length of time rested if available): n/a
- Measurement length: 3 minutes
- Fasting length: n/a
- Room temp: not mentioned
- No. of measures within the measurement period: every 15 minutes during 4 – 8 hour period; overall each patient was studied on 36 occasions
- Were some measures eliminated? Not discussed
- Were a set of measurements averaged? Mean values for VO2, VCO2, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and rate-pressure product calculated for lowest, resting and peak oxygen consumption periods
- Training of measurer? Not discussed
- Subject training of measuring
DIETARY: patients not receiving any nutritional support
Outcome(s) and other measures
- Measured metabolic rate [(VO2, ml/min), VCO2 (ml/min), RQ] using metabolic cart.
- The lowest VO2 and VCO2 observed, the mean resting VO2 and VCO2 and the peak VO2 and VCO2 for each study were calculated and examined along with the corresponding mean heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and rate-pressure-product (calculated from the systolic blood pressure and heart rate).
Blinding used: No
N=23 post-operative mechanically-ventilated supported patients studied on 36 occasions; mean age 68 y
Genders and anthropometrics not provided
Statistical tests: Statistical analysis included analysis of variance and Student’s T-test
Statistical significance was set at p <0.05.
ANTHROPOMETRIC
- Not provided
MEASUREMENT PROCESS
- Number of measurements: 36 occasions.
Length of measurements
- Metabolic and hemodynamic measurements were performed every 15 minutes during the 4-8 hours of each study.
- If warranted, measurements were performed more often.
- Steady state—not discussed
RQ
Throughout the study, the mean respiratory quotients (RQ) were well within the physiologic ranges between 0.75 and 0.85.
METABOLIC RATE
Metabolic and Hemodynamic Values for Lowest, Resting and Peak Metabolic State (N = 36; Values are Means + Std. Dev) as follows:
Lowest:
- VO2 (ml/min) = 204 ± 57
- VCO2 (ml/min) = 156 ± 32
- Heart rate (min) = 95 ± 15
- Systolic BP (mm Hg) = 129 ± 22
- Heart Rate/BP Product = 12266 ± 2958
Resting:
- VO2 = 222 ± 53
- VCO2 = 168± 30
- Heart Rate = 96 ± 16
- Systolic BP = 129 ± 25
- Heart Rate/BP Product =11806 ± 2776
Peak:
- VO2 = 285 ± 72
- VCO2 = 217 ± 55
- Heart Rate = 104 ± 18
- Systolic BP = 139 ± 29
- Heart Rate/BP Product =14252 ± 3802
- The peak VCO2 values were 32 ± 17% above the lowest values (p <0.001).
MEASUREMENT TIMING
Sleep or rest
- The lowest VO2 and VCO2 production values for each study occurred primarily (83%) during sleep.
- Resting values were significantly greater than the lowest values (p <0.05)
- Mean resting VO2 and VCO2 averaged 9.1 ± 7.5% (SD), (p <0.05) and 7.5 ± 7.3% (p <0.001).
Physical activity
- Routine daily activities (although not particularly painful) such as dressing changes, visitors, the taking of a chest roentgenogram, etc result in significant (~20%) increase in both VO2 and VCO2 above both the lowest and resting levels.
Food intake—na
Various times of the day-Measurements were collected at various times of the day
INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS
- Circulatory hormones—not discussed
- Breathing ability—on mechanical ventilation
- Medical tests/procedures included:
- Chest physical therapy, a physical examination, having a bath, having visitors, having medical procedures.
- Chest physical therapy caused an average of 38 ± 18% increase in VO2 and a 35 ± 18% increase in VCO2 above lowest levels.
- During chest physical therapy, heart rate and rate-pressure-product were significantly greater than both resting and lowest levels.
- Blood pressure, heart rate-- Hemodynamic values revealed no differences in either heart rate or systolic blood pressure between lowest and resting values.
During peak oxygen consumption, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and the rate-pressure-product were significantly greater than both lowest and resting values. (p <0.05)
Significant changes in systolic blood pressure were noted only during “moving body or limb,” “visitors” and “physical examination.”
Chemicals—Mentioned that one patient was heavily sedated at one point with morphine; affected VO2 and VCO2 than when unsedated.
This study demonstrates that routine daily ICU activities can cause arousal from the resting state and significantly alter metabolic rate. Thus, it is important to couple measurements of metabolic rate with astute observations of the patent’s activity state.
The results of this study indicate that the observed variations in metabolic rate can be classified into the 4 following categories:
- The lowest energy expenditure was found to be associated in the majority (83%) of situations; with sleep. The VO2 averaged 9.1 ± 7.5% below resting values, while VCO2 averaged 7.5 ± 7.3% below resting values. This is consistent with observations made in healthy individuals that sleep results in an 8 – 12% decrease in energy expenditure.
- Resting—Responsiveness to surrounding events was gauged as eye movements tracking the movements of hospital staff. A strict definition of lying motionless was necessary since movement of limbs caused significant increases in both VO2 and VCO2.
- Routine daily activities that, although not painful, involved arousal from the resting state, external stimulation, and both active and passive limb movement.
- Chest physical therapy—this patient care activity was associated with the greatest metabolic stimulus and was associated with significant increases in heart rate as well as rate-pressure-product. The increases in VO2 and VCO2 observed were probably due to pain, movement and muscular tension in both the chest and abdomen.
These results allow for the definition of “resting” state. Measurement of energy expenditure are traditionally performed in the “basal” state; defined as the minimal energy expenditure of a subject lying down and resting in a thermoneutral environment having fasted for the previous 12 hours. Such conditions are rare in the critically ill patient since such a patient is receiving some form of continuous nutrition, whether it be 5% dextrose or enteral or parenteral nutrition. Measurements made during rest in patients receiving total parenteral nutrition are described as measurements of resting energy expenditure (REE) and are usually about 10 percent about basal because they include the specific dynamic action of foods.
Measuring energy expenditure in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation poses a variety of problems. The initial problem is defining a reference state from which to calculate energy expenditure for use in the formation of caloric intake. This is especially crucial since these patients may be comatose, may have receiive narcotics or muscle relaxants (both of which can alter metabolic rate), or may be disoriented, and thus, be unable to follow verbal commands to remain at rest, no sleep and thrash about.
In this study, we have defined such a reference state and have named it “resting” since it appears to correspond to the resting state found in spontaneously breathing patients.
However, it is important to remember that, due to the oxygen cost of breathing, REE is greater during spontaneous breathing than during mechanical ventilation. Further investigation is needed to define a reference state for comatose patients.
While performing this study, a number of practical observations were made:
- VO2 and VCO2 were lower in a patient when heavily sedated with narcotics than when unsedated.
- After stimulation, even a routine bath or connecting the instrumentation to measure VO2 and VCO2 , metabolic rate may be elevated for up to 45 min. Thus, it is important to wait a while before attempting to measure a RMR.
- Multiple and frequent measurements should be made to ensure that the patient is truly resting. The mere observation of a motionless patient with his/her eves open is insufficient to be labeled resting, but coupled with stable measurements over a 15 to 30 min period can be considered resting. Confirmation is most reliably obtained by repeating at some later time.
It must be emphasized that measurements of resting energy expenditure is a complex and exacting task that requires an astute observer and much patience.
Government: | Public Health Service, USDA |
[Not used in Conclusion Statement Summary and Grade due to inability to determine "rest time" following activities].
Strengths
- With ventilated patients, frequent measurements of gas exchange can be performed without interfering with the patient’s respiratory system. In spontaneously breathing patients, long-terms measurements are difficult since they must be performed with either a mask or mouthpiece plus nose-clip or by placing the patient in a canopy.
- Use of the combination of visual observation, monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure along with metabolic measurements for increased accuracy
Limitations
- Only hemodynamically stable, noncomatose mechanically-ventilated surgical ICU patients were studied
- This is only a subset of ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation for a moderate-to-long period of time so limited generalizability
- Disease states not discussed
- Population not described other than they were ventilated, postop surgical patients with a mean age of 68; no gender or anthropometric information provided
- Older population (mean age 68); most likely had a number of preexisting medical conditions along with advanced age
- Since patients were hemodynamically stable; alterations in VO2 and VCO2 may have been due to the observed events rather than to a pathophysiologic phenomenon
- Does not give information on whether patients were sedated or any other medications that might alter metabolic rate (in discussion only indicates one patient was receiving morphine during part of the study)
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | N/A | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | N/A | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | N/A | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | No | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | N/A | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | N/A | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | N/A | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | N/A | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | No | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | N/A | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | N/A | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | N/A | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | N/A | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | No | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | N/A | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | N/A | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | N/A | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | N/A | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | No | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | N/A | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | N/A | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | N/A | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | N/A | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | N/A | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | N/A | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | N/A | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | N/A | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | N/A | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | N/A | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | N/A | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | N/A | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | N/A | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | N/A | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | N/A | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | N/A | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | N/A | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | N/A | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | N/A | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | N/A | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | N/A | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | N/A | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | N/A | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | N/A | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | N/A | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | N/A | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | N/A | |