Objectives
To assess if nutritional interventions informed by indirect calorimetry (IC), compared to predictive equations, show greater improvements in achieving weight goals, muscle mass, strength, physical and functional performance.
Design
Quasi-experimental study.
Setting and Participants
Geriatric rehabilitation inpatients referred to dietitian.
Intervention and Measurements
Patients were allocated based on admission ward to either the IC or equation (EQ) group. Measured resting metabolic rate (RMR) by IC was communicated to the treating dietitian for the IC group but concealed for the EQ group. Achieving weight goals was determined by comparing individualised weight goals with weight changes from inclusion to discharge (weight gain/loss: >2% change, maintenance: ≤2%). Muscle mass, strength, physical and functional performance were assessed at admission and discharge. Food intake was assessed twice over three-days at inclusion and before discharge using plate waste observation.
Results
Fifty-three patients were included (IC n=22; EQ n=31; age: 84.3±8.4 years). The measured RMR was lower than the estimated RMR within both groups [mean difference IC −282 (95%CI −490;−203), EQ −273 (−381;−42) kcal/day)] and comparable between-groups (median IC 1271 [interquartile range 1111;1446] versus EQ 1302 [1135;1397] kcal/day, p=0.800). Energy targets in the IC group were lower than the EQ group [mean difference −317 (95%CI −479;−155) kcal/day]. There were no between-group differences in energy intake, achieving weight goals, changes in muscle mass, strength, physical and functional performance.
Conclusions
In geriatric rehabilitation inpatients, nutritional interventions informed by IC compared to predictive equations showed no greater improvement in achieving weight goals, muscle mass, strength, physical and functional performance. IC facilitates more accurate determination of energy targets in this population. However, evidence for the potential benefits of its use in nutrition interventions was limited by a lack of agreement between patients’ energy intake and energy targets.
