摘要目的 评估间接测热法(IC)与HB公式法测定多发伤机械通气患者24 h能量消耗的差异及二者的相关性.方法 选取2016年12月1日至2017年8月31日宁夏医科大学总医院重症医学科(ICU)住院治疗的140例多发伤机械通气患者作为研究对象.使用IC法重复测量患者入ICU后1、3、5、7 d的24 h能量消耗,并以IC法测量的24 h能量消耗作为"金标准",计算出24 h公斤体重能量消耗.以IC法测量的第1天24 h能量消耗值与用HB公式法计算的24 h能量消耗预测值进行分析,用Bland-Altman法检测两种测量方法的一致性,用Pearson法分析两种测量方法的相关性并拟合线性方程.结果 用IC法重复测量患者1、3、5、7 d的24 h能量消耗共501次,各时间点间24 h能量消耗值(kJ/d :分别为8 163.1±1 599.4、8 221.1±1 694.7、8 445.8± 1 756.4、8 707.0±1 820.7,F＝2.451,P＝0.063)和24 h公斤体重能量消耗值(kJ·kg-1·d-1:120.5±18.9、121.4± 19.7、122.7±19.3、121.4±19.3,F＝0.252,P＝0.860)差异均无统计学意义,说明患者第1周能量代谢变化不明显.以第1天IC法测量的24 h能量消耗值〔(8 163.1±1 599.4)kJ/d〕与用HB公式法预测的24 h能量消耗值〔(6 568.8±782.0) kJ/d〕进行一致性分析,结果显示二者间存在明显的偏倚,平均偏倚-(1 591.8±121.4)kJ/d,但相关性分析显示二者存在线性相关(r＝0.439,P＝0.000),使用一元回归拟合线性方程为:Y＝2 270.5+0.897X (X为HB公式法预测的24 h能量消耗).结论 多发伤机械通气患者1周内能量代谢变化不明显;HB公式法明显低估了患者的24 h能量消耗,可以使用预测方程校正HB公式法以提高预测患者24 h能量消耗的准确性.

abstractsObjective To evaluate the difference and correlation of 24-hour energy expenditure in patients with multiple trauma receiving mechanical ventilation predicted by indirect calorimetry (IC) and HB formula. Methods 140 patients with multiple trauma receiving mechanical ventilation admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) of the General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University from December 1st, 2016 to August 31st, 2017 were enrolled. The 24-hour energy expenditure of patients was repeatedly measured at 1, 3, 5, and 7 days after ICU admission by IC method, and the 24-hour energy expenditure measured by IC method was used as the "gold standard" to calculate the 24-hour kilogram body weight energy expenditure. The 24-hour energy expenditure value measured by IC method was compared with the 24-hour energy expenditure predicted value calculated by HB formula method, the consistency of the two measurement methods was detected by Bland-Altman method, and the correlation between the two measurement methods was analyzed by Pearson method and the linear equation was fitted. Results The 24-hour energy expenditure of patients at 1, 3, 5 and 7 days after ICU was repeatedly measured by IC method for 501 times, and there was no significant difference in 24-hour energy expenditure (kJ/d: 8 163.1±1 599.4, 8 221.1±1 694.7, 8 445.8±1 756.4, 8 707.0±1 820.7, respectively, F = 2.451, P = 0.063) and 24-hour kilogram body weight energy expenditure (kJ·kg-1·d-1: 120.5±18.9, 121.4±19.7, 122.7±19.3, 121.4±19.3, respectively, F = 0.252, P = 0.860) at each time point, indicating that the first week of multi-injury patients had no significant changes in energy metabolism. The consistency between the 24-hour energy expenditure measured by IC method on the first day [(8 163.1±1 599.4) kJ/d] and that predicted by HB formula method [(6 568.8±782.0) kJ/d] was analyzed. The results showed that there was significant bias between the two methods, with an average bias of -(1 591.8±121.4) kJ/d, but the correlation analysis showed that there was a linear correlation between them (r = 0.439, P = 0.000), using one-way regression, the fitted linear equation was Y = 2 270.5+0.897X (X was 24-hour energy expenditure predicted by the HB formula). Conclusions The energy metabolism of patients with multiple trauma receiving mechanical ventilation is not obvious within 1 week. The HB formula method underestimates the 24-hour energy expenditure of patients. The prediction formula can be used to correct the HB formula and further to improve the accuracy of predicting the 24-hour energy consumption of patients.