Assessment of energy requirements in patients with short bowel syndrome by using the doubly labeled water method

• Published in: The American journal of clinical nutrition Vol. 103; no. 1; pp. 77 - 82
• Main Authors: Fassini, Priscila Giacomo, Pfrimer, Karina, Ferriolli, Eduardo, Suen, Vivian Miguel Marques, Marchini, Júlio Sérgio, Das, Sai Krupa
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc 01.01.2016
• Subjects: Accelerometry; Adult; Aged; Basal Metabolism; Bioenergetics; Body Mass Index; Bowel disease; Calorimetry, Indirect - methods; Diet; Disease Management; Energy Intake; Energy Metabolism - physiology; Female; Humans; Male; Malnutrition - prevention & control; Middle Aged; Models, Biological; Motor Activity; Nutrition; Nutritional Requirements - physiology; Patients; Physical Exertion; Short Bowel Syndrome - therapy; Water; resting energy expenditure; total energy expenditure; doubly labeled water; energy requirement; short bowel syndrome
• ISSN: 0002-9165; 1938-3207
• DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.115.122408

Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is a serious malabsorption disorder, and dietetic management of patients with SBS is extremely challenging. Once the degree of undernutrition has been assessed, successful dietary intervention is contingent on an accurate estimation and provision of energy needs. We quantified total energy expenditure (TEE) in patients with SBS by using the doubly labeled water (DLW) method to inform energy needs and nutritional therapy goals. In this observational study, TEE was measured in 22 participants, 11 with SBS and 11 sex-, age-, and body mass index (BMI)-matched controls (non-SBS), for 14 d with the DLW method. Predicted energy requirements were determined by using the Escott-Stump equation and compared with TEE determined with DLW. Resting energy expenditure was measured by using indirect calorimetry, and an accelerometer was also used to determine physical activity level. Participants were aged (mean ± SD) 53 ± 8 y. Measured TEE was significantly higher than predicted TEE for the SBS group (1875 ± 276 compared with 1517 ± 175 kcal/d, P = 0.001) and also for the non-SBS group (2393 ± 445 compared with 1532 ± 178 kcal/d, P < 0.01). Measured TEE was significantly lower in the SBS group than in the non-SBS group (P < 0.01); however, predicted TEE did not differ significantly between the groups (P = 0.84). No significant differences were seen between measured and predicted resting energy expenditure either within or between groups. Measured TEE in patients with SBS was significantly higher than predicted by using standard equations but also lower than values for age-, BMI-, and sex-matched non-SBS controls. Currently used formulas in clinical practice appear to underestimate energy requirements of patients with SBS, and revision is needed to prevent underfeeding and improve long-term prognosis. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02113228.