Are Predictive Energy Expenditure Equations Accurate in Cirrhosis?

Malnutrition is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in cirrhosis. An accurate nutrition prescription is an essential component of care, often estimated using time-efficient predictive equations. Our aim was to compare resting energy expenditure (REE) estimated using predictive equations (predicted REE, pREE) versus REE measured using gold-standard, indirect calorimetry (IC) (measured REE, mREE). We included full-text English language studies in adults with cirrhosis comparing pREE versus mREE. The mean differences across studies were pooled with RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 17 studies (1883 patients) were analyzed. The pooled cohort was comprised of 65% men with a mean age of 53 ± 7 years. Only 45% of predictive equations estimated energy requirements to within 90⁻110% of mREE using IC. Eighty-three percent of predictive equations underestimated and 28% overestimated energy needs by ±10%. When pooled, the mean difference between the mREE and pREE was lowest for the Harris⁻Benedict equation, with an underestimation of 54 (95% CI: 30⁻137) kcal/d. The pooled analysis was associated with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). In conclusion, predictive equations calculating REE have limited accuracy in patients with cirrhosis, most commonly underestimating energy requirements and are associated with wide variations in individual comparative data.

The role of a rapid assessment zone/pod on reducing overcrowding in emergency departments: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a rapid assessment zone (RAZ) to mitigate emergency department (ED) overcrowding. METHODS: Electronic databases, controlled trial registries, conference proceedings, study references, experts in the field and correspondence with authors were used to identify potentially relevant studies. Intervention studies, in which a RAZ was used to influence length of stay, physician initial assessment and patients left without being seen, were included. Mean differences were calculated and reported with corresponding 95% CIs; individual statistics are presented as RR with associated 95% CI. RESULTS: From 14 446 potentially relevant studies, four studies were included in the review. The quality of one study was appraised as moderately high; others were rated as weak. Two studies showed that a RAZ was associated with a reduction of 20 min (95% CI: -47.2 to 7.2) in the ED length of stay; in one non-randomised clinical trial (RCT), a 192 min reduction was reported (95% CI: -211.6 to -172.4). Physician initial assessment showed a reduction of 8.0 min; 95% CI: -13.8 to -2.2 in the RCT and a reduction of 33 min (95% CI: -42.3 to -23.6) and 18 min (95% CI: -22.2 to -13.8) respectively were found in two non-RCTs. There was a reduction in the risk of patient leaving without being seen (RCT: RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.12; non-RCT: RR =0.68, 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Although the results are consistent, and low acuity patients seem to benefit the most from a RAZ, the available evidence to support its implementation is limited.