Advertisement

Comparison of the standard predictive equation for calculation of resting energy expenditure with indirect calorimetry in hospitalized and healthy dogs

Elizabeth O'TooleDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
Present address is the Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1089.

Search for other papers by Elizabeth O'Toole in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVSc, DACVECC
,
Craig W. MillerDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by Craig W. Miller in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MVSc, DACVS
,
Brian A. WilsonDepartment of Human Biology and Nutritional Sciences, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by Brian A. Wilson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 EdD
,
Karol A. MathewsDepartment of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by Karol A. Mathews in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVSc, DACVECC
,
Clive DavisDepartment of Medicine, Hamilton Science Centre, Hamilton, ON L8S 4R5, Canada.

Search for other papers by Clive Davis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD
, and
William SearsDepartment of Clinical Studies Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Search for other papers by William Sears in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MSc

Abstract

Objective—To determine the level of clinical agreement between 2 methods for the measurement of resting energy expenditure (REE).

Design—Prospective case series.

Animals—77 dogs.

Procedure—Oxygen consumption (O2) and CO2 production (CO2) were measured with an open-flow indirect calorimeter in healthy (n = 10) and ill (67) dogs. Measurements were collected at 3 time periods on 2 days. The O2 and the CO2 measurements were then used to calculate the REE values.

Results—Mean values of measured (MREE) and predicted (PREE) REEs in healthy dogs and a dog with medical illnesses or trauma were not significantly different. There was a significant difference on day 2 between the MREE and PREE in the group of dogs recovering from major surgery. More importantly, there was significant variation between the PREE and MREE on an individual-dog basis. The PREE only agreed to within ± 20% of the MREE in 51% to 57% of the dogs.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The level of agreement between these two methods for determining the 24-hour REE was poor in individual dogs. The level of disagreement between the 2 methods indicates that these methods may not be used interchangeably in a clinical setting. Measurement of REE by use of indirect calorimetry may be the only reliable method of determining REE in an individual ill or healthy dog. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:58–64)

Abstract

Objective—To determine the level of clinical agreement between 2 methods for the measurement of resting energy expenditure (REE).

Design—Prospective case series.

Animals—77 dogs.

Procedure—Oxygen consumption (O2) and CO2 production (CO2) were measured with an open-flow indirect calorimeter in healthy (n = 10) and ill (67) dogs. Measurements were collected at 3 time periods on 2 days. The O2 and the CO2 measurements were then used to calculate the REE values.

Results—Mean values of measured (MREE) and predicted (PREE) REEs in healthy dogs and a dog with medical illnesses or trauma were not significantly different. There was a significant difference on day 2 between the MREE and PREE in the group of dogs recovering from major surgery. More importantly, there was significant variation between the PREE and MREE on an individual-dog basis. The PREE only agreed to within ± 20% of the MREE in 51% to 57% of the dogs.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The level of agreement between these two methods for determining the 24-hour REE was poor in individual dogs. The level of disagreement between the 2 methods indicates that these methods may not be used interchangeably in a clinical setting. Measurement of REE by use of indirect calorimetry may be the only reliable method of determining REE in an individual ill or healthy dog. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2004;225:58–64)