Relation between nutritional status on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients: emphasizing nutritional screening tools in a prospective cohort investigation-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Relation between nutritional status on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients: emphasizing nutritional screening tools in a prospective cohort investigation

Published:2024-05-09 Issue:1 Volume:10 Page:
ISSN:2055-0928
Container-title:BMC Nutrition
language:en
Short-container-title:BMC Nutr

Author:

Moghaddam Omid Moradi,Emam Masoumeh Hosseinzadeh,Irandoost Pardis,Hejazi Mahdi,Iraji Zeinab,Yazdanpanah Leila,Mirhosseini Seyedeh Farnaz,Mollajan Abolfazl,Lahiji Mohammad Niakan

Abstract

Abstract Background Malnutrition is a significant concern reported in adult critically ill patients, yet there is no gold standard to assess nutritional status in this population. This study examines the association between nutritional status and clinical outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) patients using nutritional risk assessment tools and aims to look for the best tool. Method In a single-center prospective cohort study among 165 patients, the predictive performance of high or low malnutrition risk assessed by Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS), Modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (m-NUTRIC), Mini-Nutritional-Assessment Short-Form (MNA-SF), Controlling Nutritional status (CONUT), and Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) were evaluated and compared for mortality, organ failure, length of hospitalization, and mechanical ventilation (MV). Results Different assessment tools showed various nutritional statuses. m-NUTRIC and NRS-2002 were found to be associated more strongly relative to other tools with mortality (RR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.42–2.08) and (RR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08–1.72), organ failure (RR = 1.69; 95% CI, 1.44–1.96) and (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99–1.48), MV (RR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.27–1.65) and (RR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04–1.39) respectively. There was no correlation between malnutrition levels assessed by mentioned tools except for NRS-2002 and length of hospitalization. In predicting mortality or illness severity, the cut points were different for some tools like NUTRIC-score and all assessed outcomes (3.5), MNA-SF and mortality (6.5), CONUT with mortality, and MV (6.5). Conclusions A considerable proportion of patients admitted to the ICU are at high risk for malnutrition. Compared to other tools, m-NUTRIC and NRS-2002 proved superior in predicting clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. Other tools overestimated the risk of malnutrition in the ICU so couldn’t predict clinical outcomes correctly.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Link

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s40795-024-00869-3.pdf

Reference49 articles.

1. Kaddoura R, Shanks A, Chapman M, O’Connor S, Lange K, Yandell R. Relationship between nutritional status on admission to the intensive care unit and clinical outcomes. Nutr Diet. 2021;78(2):128–34.

2. Shao Y, Lai QC, Duan Q, Ge P, Ye L. Nutritional indices at admission are associated with mortality rates of patients in the intensive care unit. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022;76(4):557–63.

3. Correia MI, Waitzberg DL. The impact of malnutrition on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs evaluated through a multivariate model analysis. Clin Nutr. 2003;22(3):235–9.

4. Lim SL, Ong KC, Chan YH, Loke WC, Ferguson M, Daniels L. Malnutrition and its impact on cost of hospitalization, length of stay, readmission and 3-year mortality. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(3):345–50.

5. McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, McCarthy M, Roberts P, Taylor B, et al. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the adult critically ill patient: society of critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N). JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2009;33(3):277–316.