Abstract
Clinicians have widely recognized that indirect calorimetry (IC) is the "gold standard" for measuring energy expenditure (EE) and thus would intuitively anticipate that its use would be needed to provide optimal nutrition support in critical illness. Recent studies in the literature as well as dramatic changes in clinical practice over the past decade, though, would suggest that such a precise measure by IC to set energy goals is not required to maximize clinical benefit from early feeding in the intensive care unit (ICU). Results from randomized controlled trials evaluating permissive underfeeding, use of supplemental parenteral nutrition to achieve tight calorie control, and caloric density of formulas to increase energy delivery have provided an important perspective on 3 pertinent issues. First, a simple weight-based predictive equation (25 kcal/kg/day) provides a clinically useful approximation of EE. Second, a precise measure of EE by IC does not appear to improve outcomes compared with use of this less accurate estimation of energy requirements. And third, providing some percentage of requirements (50%-80%), achieves similar clinical benefit to full feeding (100%) in the early phases of critical illness. The value from IC use lies in the determination of caloric requirements in conditions for which weight-based equations are rendered inaccurate (anasarca, amputation, severe obesity) or the clinical state is markedly altered (such as the prolonged hyperinflammatory state of coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). In most other circumstances, routine use of IC would not be expected to change clinical outcomes from early nutrition therapy in the ICU.
