• Liad Lupinsky, Pierre Singer, Miriam Theilla, Milana Grinev, Raphael Hirsh, Shaul Lev, Ilya Kagan, and Joelle Attal-Singer.
• Department of General Intensive Care and Institute for Nutrition Research, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus, Petah Tiqva, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
• Nutrition. 2015 Jan 1; 31 (1): 176-9.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Fitmate metabolic system in measuring the oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate (RMR) in ambulatory and hospitalized patients.MethodsWe conducted a prospective simultaneous clinical comparison. We enrolled 37 patients (19 women and 18 men) for the four groups of the study. Group 1 (n = 12) included patients receiving home parenteral nutrition. Group 2 (n = 5) included diabetic overweight outpatients with body mass index >30 kg/m(2) and hemoglobin A1c > 8 g/dL. Group 3 (n = 10) included hospitalized patients receiving artificial nutrition. Group 4 (n = 10) included patients with congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension of any etiology, and other heart disease who have had hemodynamic evaluation during catheterization by the adult congenital team. The patients were tested successively during the same session using the Fitmate metabolic system for 15 min and the Deltatrac II metabolic monitor for 20 min, measuring resting energy expenditure and oxygen consumption. The test was conducted in random order.ResultsNo significant differences were found between Fit Mate and Deltatrac II for oxygen consumption (238 ± 18 and 240 ± 18 mL/min, respectively, P = 0.72, r = 0.86, mean ± SD absolute difference 22.32 ± 16.99 mL/min) or RMR (1659 ± 122.34 and 1625 ± 118.4 kcal/d, P = 0.28, r = 0.87, mean ± SD absolute difference 152.9 ± 111.95 kcal/d). A degree of limit of agreement (403 kcal) was observed using the Bland-Altman test. When compared with Harris-Benedict predictive equations, Fitmate was found to be superior in accuracy.ConclusionsThese data indicate that the Fitmate using a mask provided a fair evaluation of REE despite a large limit of agreement. It remains a reliable and valid system for measuring oxygen consumption and RMR in nonventilated patients.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…