Are Predictive Energy Expenditure Equations in Ventilated Surgery Patients Accurate?

BACKGROUND:: While indirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard used to calculate specific calorie needs in the critically ill, predictive equations are frequently utilized at many institutions for various reasons. Prior studies suggest these equations frequently misjudge actual resting energy expenditure (REE) in medical and mixed intensive care unit (ICU) patients; however, their utility for surgical ICU (SICU) patients has not been fully evaluated. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the REE measured by IC with REE calculated using specific calorie goals or predictive equations for nutritional support in ventilated adult SICU patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on all adults (n = 419, 18-91 years) mechanically ventilated for >24 hours, with an Fio2 ≤ 60%, who met IC screening criteria. Caloric needs were estimated using Harris-Benedict equations (HBEs), and 20, 25, and 30 kcal/kg/d with actual (ABW), adjusted (ADJ), and ideal body (IBW) weights. The REE was measured using IC. RESULTS:: The estimated REE was considered accurate when within ±10% of the measured REE by IC. The HBE, 20, 25, and 30 kcal/kg/d estimates of REE were found to be inaccurate regardless of age, gender, or weight. The HBE and 20 kcal/kg/d underestimated REE, while 25 and 30 kcal/kg/d overestimated REE. Of the methods studied, those found to most often accurately estimate REE were the HBE using ABW, which was accurate 35% of the time, and 25 kcal/kg/d ADJ, which was accurate 34% of the time. This difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION:: Using HBE, 20, 25, or 30 kcal/kg/d to estimate daily caloric requirements in critically ill surgical patients is inaccurate compared to REE measured by IC. In SICU patients with nutrition requirements essential to recovery, IC measurement should be performed to guide clinicians in determining goal caloric requirements.

Dissecting Leapfrog: How Well Do Leapfrog Safe Practices Scores Correlate With Hospital Compare Ratings and Penalties, and How Much Do They Matter?

BACKGROUND: Voluntary Leapfrog Safe Practices Score (SPS) measures were among the first public reports of hospital performance. Recently, Medicare's Hospital Compare website has reported compulsory measures. Leapfrog's Hospital Safety Score (HSS) grades incorporate SPS and Medicare measures. We evaluate associations between Leapfrog SPS and Medicare measures, and the impact of SPS on HSS grades. METHODS: Using 2013 hospital data, we linked Leapfrog HSS data with central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) standardized infection ratios (SIRs), and Hospital Readmission and Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program penalties incorporating 2013 performance. For SPS-providing hospitals, we used linear and logistic regression models to predict CLABSI/CAUTI SIRs and penalties as a function of SPS. For hospitals not reporting SPS, we simulated change in HSS grades after imputing a range of SPS. RESULTS: In total, 1089 hospitals reported SPS; >50% self-reported perfect scores for all but 1 measure. No SPS measures were associated with SIRs. One SPS (feedback) was associated with lower odds of HAC penalization (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.97). Among hospitals not reporting SPS (N=1080), 98% and 54% saw grades decline by 1+ letters with first and 10th percentile SPS imputed, respectively; 49% and 54% saw grades improve by 1+ letter with median and highest SPS imputed. CONCLUSIONS: Voluntary Leapfrog SPS measures skew toward positive self-report and bear little association with compulsory Medicare outcomes and penalties. SPS significantly impacts HSS grades, particularly when lower SPS is reported. With increasing compulsory reporting, Leapfrog SPS seems limited for comparing hospital performance.

Properties of the International Classification for Functioning, Disability and Health in assessing hand outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Variables from a study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for rheumatoid arthritis. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the ICF Core Sets for rheumatoid arthritis for assessing the functional outcomes of the rheumatoid hand. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SUBJECTS: A total of 142 subjects with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients who elected to have or not have arthroplasty were linked with the ICF Core Sets. Study variables were assigned into one of the Core Set blocks that compose the ICF model. The blocks were then entered into multiple regression models to determine the contribution of each block in explaining the variation in hand outcome at enrollment, as well as the change in hand outcome after one year. RESULTS: Seventy percent of the reported hand outcome at enrollment was explained by the ICF Core Set blocks. For change in hand outcome at one year, the ICF Core Set blocks measured at enrollment explained 18% of the variance. CONCLUSION: The components of the ICF Core Set for rheumatoid arthritis explained much of the variation in hand functioning for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but were not predictive of the change in hand functioning after one year.