Handheld Indirect Calorimetry as a Clinical Tool for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Children with and without Obesity

Background: Resting energy expenditure (REE) is a valuable measure in clinical management of obesity and other chronic illnesses. Gold standard methods for measuring REE (e.g., Douglas bags and metabolic cart) are too expensive and cumbersome for an outpatient clinical setting. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of a handheld indirect calorimeter (HHIC) and prediction equations (PEs) for measurement of REE in youth with and without obesity. Methods: Fifty-three children and adolescents (12.8 ± 4.3 years, 50.9% female) had REE measured first with a MedGem™ HHIC for 10 minutes, followed by a reference indirect calorimeter system (ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400™) with hood canopy and dilution pump for 30 minutes. REE was also estimated using nine PEs as follows: Henry-1, Henry-2, Schofield, World Health Organization, Molnar, Muller, Herrmann, Schmelzle, and Harris-Benedict. Concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analyses were used for comparisons among PEs, MedGem HHIC, and metabolic cart. Results: The observed correlation between the HHIC and the reference system was r_c = 0.89 with a mean bias of 2.27 ± 3.41 kcal/(kg·d) (9.1% ± 14.7%). Regarding PE, Molnar had the highest agreement with the reference system [r_c = 0.93, bias of 2.17 ± 2.04 kcal/(kg·d); 9.8% ± 8.1%], followed by Harris-Benedict (r_c = 0.89; 13.8% ± 8.9%), Henry-2 (r_c = 0.89; 15% ± 7.6%), and Henry-1 (r_c = 0.86; 16.7% ± 7.3%). All PEs were less accurate for children with overweight/obesity. Conclusions: Compared to PE, the HHIC provided more accurate REE estimates for children across the age and BMI spectrum, although positive bias was present throughout. Difference in positive bias between the HHIC and the Molnar equation may be clinically significant for youth with overweight/obesity.