Validation of SenseWear Armband and ActiHeart monitors for assessments of daily energy expenditure in free-living women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Validation of SenseWear Armband and ActiHeart monitors for assessments of daily energy expenditure in free-living women with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/phy2.150
复制
发表时间：
2013-11
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Sandstrom, Thomas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Farooqi, Nighat;Slinde, Frode;Haglin, Lena;Sandstrom, Thomas
为了向慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者提供个性化的营养支持，必须使用客观和可靠的方法来评估患者的能量需求。本研究的目的是验证SenseWear臂章(SWA)和心动(AH)监测仪在评估总每日能量消耗(TEE)和活动能量消耗(AEE)方面的应用，并将这些技术与双标记水(DLW)方法在自由生活的COPD妇女中进行比较。应用软件5.1版(TEESWA5，AEESWA5)或6.1版(TEESWA6，AEESWA6)的SWAS和AH监护仪(TEEAH，AEEAH)，以DLW(TEEDLW)为标准方法，对19例COPD患者进行为期14天的TEE和AEE测定。采用组内相关系数(ICC)和Bland-Altman分析对三种方法进行比较。平均TEE在DLW和SWA5.1方法之间无显著差异(−21±726kJ/d；P=0.90)，但在DLW和SWA6.1之间(709±667kJ/d)(P<；0.001)和DLW和AH方法(709±786kJ/d)之间有显著差异(P<；0.001)。DLW和TEESWA5方法之间有很强的一致性(ICC=0.76；95%CI 0.47~0.90)，DLW和TEESWA6方法之间有中等的一致性(ICC=0.66；95%CI 0.02~0.88)，而DLW和TEEAH方法之间的一致性(ICC=0.61；95%CI 0.05~0.85)。与DLW法相比，SWA5.1低估了AEE 12%(P=0.03)，而SWA6.1和AH监测仪低估了AEE 35%(P<；0.001)。Bland-Altman图显示对TEE或AEE没有系统性偏倚。SWA5.1可以可靠地评估患有COPD的女性患者的TEE。然而，SWA6.1和AH监视器低估了TEE。SWA和AH监视器低估了AEE。
To provide individually adapted nutritional support to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), objective and reliable methods must be used to assess patient energy requirements. The aim of this study was to validate the use of SenseWear Armband (SWA) and ActiHeart (AH) monitors for assessing total daily energy expenditure (TEE) and activity energy expenditure (AEE) and compare these techniques with the doubly labeled water (DLW) method in free-living women with COPD. TEE and AEE were measured in 19 women with COPD for 14 days using SWAs with software version 5.1 (TEESWA5, AEESWA5) or 6.1 (TEESWA6, AEESWA6) and AH monitors (TEEAH, AEEAH), using DLW (TEEDLW) as the criterion method. The three methods were compared using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland–Altman analyses. The mean TEE did not significantly differ between the DLW and SWA5.1 methods (−21 ± 726 kJ/day; P = 0.9), but it did significantly differ between the DLW and SWA6.1 (709 ± 667 kJ/day) (P < 0.001) and the DLW and AH methods (709 ± 786 kJ/day) (P < 0.001). Strong agreement was observed between the DLW and TEESWA5 methods (ICC = 0.76; 95% CI 0.47–0.90), with moderate agreements between the DLW and TEESWA6 (ICC = 0.66; 95% CI 0.02–0.88) and the DLW and TEEAH methods (ICC = 0.61; 95% CI 0.05–0.85). Compared with the DLW method, the SWA5.1 underestimated AEE by 12% (P = 0.03), whereas the SWA6.1 and AH monitors underestimated AEE by 35% (P < 0.001). Bland–Altman plots revealed no systematic bias for TEE or AEE. The SWA5.1 can reliably assess TEE in women with COPD. However, the SWA6.1 and AH monitors underestimate TEE. The SWA and AH monitors underestimate AEE.