StayCurrentMD · Resting energy expenditure in infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia without respiratory support at time of neonatal hospital discharge
Article1 min read·Published Sep 2018Older

Resting energy expenditure in infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia without respiratory support at time of neonatal hospital discharge

jpedsurg.org shows its articles on its own site.

Read the article on jpedsurg.org ↗

Article · Sep 2018 · 1 min read

In brief

In brief

Prospective study measuring resting energy expenditure via indirect calorimetry in 18 term infants with CDH no longer requiring respiratory support at hospital discharge. Findings show REE increases with post-conceptional age and measured values differ from standard predictive equations, informing nutritional management strategies for this high-risk population.

Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.

Abstract

Background

Infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) are at risk for growth failure because of inadequate caloric intake and high catabolic stress. There is limited data on resting energy expenditure (REE) in infants with CDH.

Aims

To assess REE via indirect calorimetry (IC) in term infants with CDH who are no longer on respiratory support and nearing hospital discharge with advancing post-conceptional age and to assess measured-to-predicted REE using predictive equations.

Methods

A prospective cohort study of term infants with CDH who were no longer on respiratory support and nearing hospital discharge was conducted to assess REE via IC and caloric intake. Baseline characteristics and hospital course data were collected. Three day average caloric intake around time of IC testing was calculated. Change in REE with advancing post-conceptional age and advancing post-natal age was assessed. The average measured-to-predicted REE was calculated for the cohort using predictive equations [22].

Results

Eighteen infants with CDH underwent IC. REE in infants with CDH increased with advancing postconceptional age (r2 = 0.3, p 

Read it at the source ↗

Try
Intelligent Search· scoped to this article · not medical adviceSearch the whole library →