Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2016
Dialysis Malnutrition and Malnutrition Inflammation Scores: screening tools for prediction of dialysis-related protein-energy wasting in Malaysia.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Harvinder Gilcharan Singh, Swee Winnie Chee Siew, Karupaiah Tilakavati, Sahathevan Sharmela, Chinna Karuthan, Ahmad Ghazali, Bavanandan Sunita, Goh Bak Leong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Malnutrition is highly prevalent in Malaysian dialysis patients and there is a need for a valid screening tool for early identification and management. This cross-sectional study aims to examine the sensitivity of the Dialysis Malnutrition Score (DMS) and Malnutrition Inflammation Score (MIS) tools in predicting protein-energy wasting (PEW) among Malaysian dialysis patients.
METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: A total of 155 haemodialysis (HD) and 90 peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients were screened for risk of malnutrition using DMS and MIS and comparisons were made with established guidelines by International Society of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism (ISRNM) for PEW.
RESULTS: MIS cut-off score of >=5 indicated presence of malnutrition in all patients. A total of 59% of HD and 83% of PD patients had PEW by ISRNM criteria. Based on DMS, 73% of HD and 71% of PD patients exhibited moderate malnutrition, whilst using MIS, 88% and 90%, respectively were malnourished. DMS and MIS correlated significantly in HD (r2=0.552, p<0.001) and PD (r2=0.466, p<0.001) patients. DMS and MIS had higher sensitivity values in PD (81% and 82%, respectively) compared to HD (59% and 60%, respectively) patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The MIS cut-off scores for malnutrition classification were established (score >=5) for use amongst Malaysian dialysis patients. Both DMS and MIS are valid tools to be used for nutrition screening of dialysis patients especially those undergoing peritoneal dialysis. The DMS may be a more practical and simpler tool to be utilized in the Malaysian dialysis settings as it does not require laboratory markers.
METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: A total of 155 haemodialysis (HD) and 90 peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients were screened for risk of malnutrition using DMS and MIS and comparisons were made with established guidelines by International Society of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism (ISRNM) for PEW.
RESULTS: MIS cut-off score of >=5 indicated presence of malnutrition in all patients. A total of 59% of HD and 83% of PD patients had PEW by ISRNM criteria. Based on DMS, 73% of HD and 71% of PD patients exhibited moderate malnutrition, whilst using MIS, 88% and 90%, respectively were malnourished. DMS and MIS correlated significantly in HD (r2=0.552, p<0.001) and PD (r2=0.466, p<0.001) patients. DMS and MIS had higher sensitivity values in PD (81% and 82%, respectively) compared to HD (59% and 60%, respectively) patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The MIS cut-off scores for malnutrition classification were established (score >=5) for use amongst Malaysian dialysis patients. Both DMS and MIS are valid tools to be used for nutrition screening of dialysis patients especially those undergoing peritoneal dialysis. The DMS may be a more practical and simpler tool to be utilized in the Malaysian dialysis settings as it does not require laboratory markers.