Abstract

Author(s): Maranhão de Arruda, Andressa1; Soares, Bruna Lúcia de Mendonça2; Pinheiro Gadelha, Patrícia Calado Ferreira2

Introduction: Children are vulnerable to burns due to the fact that their physical and motor skills are in the process of development. In clinical practice, predictive equations are used for the determination of total energy expenditure.

Objective: Compare energy requirements obtained from different predictive equations in pediatric burn patients at a reference service of Recife, Brazil.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with patients divided into groups (0-5 years, 5-10 years and 10- 18 years) hospitalized between March and October 2019 at the Burn Treatment Unit of the Restauração Hospital. Data were collected from the patient charts and nutritional assessment. Energy requirements were estimated using different equations. A p-value <0.05 was considered indicative significance.

Results: Among the 117 patients, 53.8% were males. Median age and hospital stay were 2.6(1.4-6.7) years and seven (5.0-10.5) days, respectively. All patients had seconddegree burns, with a median of 6% of the body surface affected. In Group 1, the energy value obtained using Schofield’s formula considering minimum and mean stress factors was similar to that obtained using the Davies & Liljedahl and Mayes equations, respectively. In Group 2, the energy value obtained using Schofield’s formula with three stress factors differed from that of the other equations. In Group 3, the energy value obtained using Schofield’s factors with a minimum stress factor was similar to that obtained using the Harris-Benedict equation modified by Long and Curreri.

Discussion: This is a pioneering study that compared different formulas with the most recommended equation in the literature. The majority of predictive formulas were not in agreement with the most recommended equation, perhaps due to the fact that body weight is the only common variable among these equations.

Conclusion: Most energy values obtained by the equations differed from each other, which may be explained by the different factors that compose these equations