Clinical nutrition ESPEN · 2021
Different GLIM criteria combinations change prevalence of malnutrition in patients with intestinal insufficiency or intestinal failure.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mikkelsen Sabina, Køhler Marianne, Østergaard Trine, Rasmussen Henrik Højgaard
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIM: Due to lack of global consensus in diagnosing malnutrition, Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) has suggested the GLIM criteria based on etiological and phenotypical criteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of malnutrition in patients with intestinal insufficiency (INS) or intestinal failure (IF) based on the different GLIM criteria combinations to diagnose malnutrition. Furthermore, the aim was to investigate the severity of malnutrition in the two patient groups.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study with INS patients on enteral nutrition and IF patients on home parenteral nutrition. We recorded age, gender, weight, height, fat free mass index (FFMI) by bioelectrical impedance analysis, handgrip strength (HGS), arm muscle circumference (AMC) and biochemical parameters: plasma albumin (p-alb) and plasma C-reactive protein (p-CRP). Further, we calculated Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and body mass index (BMI).
STATISTICS: T-test, Chi-square test and simple logistic regression analysis. Significance level: p < 0.05.
RESULTS: In total 277 INS and IF patients were included (age 59.5 ± 15.2 years, male 43,7%, BMI 22.1 ± 4.3 kg/m2). Groups were comparable according to number, age and gender but more IF patients had decreased BMI, p-alb, HGS and FFMI and increased CRP and GPS 1 or 2. Prevalence of malnutrition using GPS 1 or 2 combined with BMI, FFMI or HGS was 22.6%, 23.4%, 26.3% for INS, respectively (p = 0.756) and 40.7%, 40.0%, 59.3% for IF, respectively (p = 0.001). Agreement between the criteria combinations were: 8.0% for INS and 25.7% for IF. Significantly more with IF was diagnosed with severe malnutrition as compared to no malnutrition (43 vs. 26, p = 0.012, OR 2.1 [CI95% 1.2-3.8]), but only a tendency in the group with moderate malnutrition as compared to no malnutrition (27 vs. 22, p = 0.180, OR 1.6 [CI95% 0.8-3.0]) CONCLUSION: We found both prevalence and severity of malnutrition to be higher in IF than INS patients. GLIM-criteria were able to identify approximately same prevalence of malnutrition in INS but not in IF, when combining GPS 1 or 2 with BMI, FFMI and HGS. However, the agreement was poor in both groups. Consequently, further validation of GLIM is needed - including association to clinical outcome in lack of a gold standard.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study with INS patients on enteral nutrition and IF patients on home parenteral nutrition. We recorded age, gender, weight, height, fat free mass index (FFMI) by bioelectrical impedance analysis, handgrip strength (HGS), arm muscle circumference (AMC) and biochemical parameters: plasma albumin (p-alb) and plasma C-reactive protein (p-CRP). Further, we calculated Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and body mass index (BMI).
STATISTICS: T-test, Chi-square test and simple logistic regression analysis. Significance level: p < 0.05.
RESULTS: In total 277 INS and IF patients were included (age 59.5 ± 15.2 years, male 43,7%, BMI 22.1 ± 4.3 kg/m2). Groups were comparable according to number, age and gender but more IF patients had decreased BMI, p-alb, HGS and FFMI and increased CRP and GPS 1 or 2. Prevalence of malnutrition using GPS 1 or 2 combined with BMI, FFMI or HGS was 22.6%, 23.4%, 26.3% for INS, respectively (p = 0.756) and 40.7%, 40.0%, 59.3% for IF, respectively (p = 0.001). Agreement between the criteria combinations were: 8.0% for INS and 25.7% for IF. Significantly more with IF was diagnosed with severe malnutrition as compared to no malnutrition (43 vs. 26, p = 0.012, OR 2.1 [CI95% 1.2-3.8]), but only a tendency in the group with moderate malnutrition as compared to no malnutrition (27 vs. 22, p = 0.180, OR 1.6 [CI95% 0.8-3.0]) CONCLUSION: We found both prevalence and severity of malnutrition to be higher in IF than INS patients. GLIM-criteria were able to identify approximately same prevalence of malnutrition in INS but not in IF, when combining GPS 1 or 2 with BMI, FFMI and HGS. However, the agreement was poor in both groups. Consequently, further validation of GLIM is needed - including association to clinical outcome in lack of a gold standard.