Search

Summary Background & aims Patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) are at high risk of malnutrition. The only validated malnutrition assessment tool is the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) is a new malnutrition assessment tool. The present study compares the nutrition-related parameters of the following tools: GLIM tool, SGA, Phase Angle (PA), Low Fat-Free Mass Index (FFMI), and Patient- and Nutrition-Derived Outcome Risk Assessment score (PANDORA), in an attempt to validate an objective tool. Methods Eighty-four ICU patients were included. The tools mentioned above were assessed for their validity in diagnosing malnutrition. All patients were defined as suffering from acute disease and received medical nutrition therapy. To evaluate whether there is a correlation between the GLIM criteria, SGA, PA, and low FFMI, we compared the SGA, PA, and low FFMI to the GLIM criteria using Spearman correlation coefficients and a Chi-square test. Also, a Mann–Whitney U test was used to test the mean differences between the GLIM criteria and the PANDORA. The area under the curve (AUC) of the proposed parameters was evaluated for diagnosis of malnutrition to seek cutoff points that yield good sensitivity and specificity. Results Mean age was 50 ± 20 years, BMI 25.3 ± 5.1 kg/m2, APACHE II 20.5 ± 7.7, PANDORA score 32 ± 8.5. GLIM malnutrition criteria were significantly correlated with the gold standard SGA assessment and with low FFMI, with PA (Phase Angle), and with the PANDORA score. The area under the curve, by using the ROC curve analysis for GLIM criteria stratified by the SGA results, was 0.85 (P Conclusions The SGA malnutrition assessment highly validated the GLIM criteria framework combined with the two-criteria diagnosis of malnutrition with a high level of precision. The GLIM malnutrition assessment seems to be acceptable in the ICU setting.

Summary Rationale While various nutritional assessment tools have been proposed, consensus is lacking with respect to the most effective tool to identify severe malnutrition in critically ill patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective study in an adult general intensive care unit (ICU) comparing four nutritional assessment tools: Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS), Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (NUTRIC), and malnutrition criteria proposed by European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN). These criteria were tested for their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) in diagnosis of severe malnutrition, defined as Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) C. Results Hospitalization records for 120 critically ill patients were analyzed. 60 (50%), 17 (14.2%) and 43 (35.8%) patients were classified as SGA A, B, and C, respectively. The sensitivity in diagnosis of severe malnutrition was 79.1%, 58.1%, 65.1%, and 65.1%, and specificity was 94.8%, 74.0%, 94.8%, and 98.7% for NRS, NUTRIC, ESPEN, and ASPEN, respectively. NRS, ESPEN, and ASPEN had higher PPV (89.5%, 87.5%, and 87.5%, respectively) and NPV (89%, 83%, and 83.5%, respectively) than NUTRIC (PPV 55.6% and NPV 76%). NUTRIC showed the highest correlation with mortality, but none of the tools retained their correlation with mortality after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Conclusions NRS showed the highest sensitivity and high specificity, PPV, and NPV. NUTRIC had least effective overall performance in diagnosis of severe malnutrition in an ICU setting. A larger population may be required to explore the association between mortality and these nutritional assessment tools.

High-flow nasal-cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is increasingly used in the management of respiratory distress. Since this treatment may be required for many days and may impair nutritional intake, this study planned to observe the energy and protein intake of individuals receiving this therapy.Forty consecutive patients requiring HFNC oxygenation after extubation or to prevent intubation from November 2017 to June 2018 were included in the study. Demographics, route of nutrition (oral, enteral, or parenteral), calories and protein prescribed and administered, and complications were noted until discharge. Statistical analysis used χHFNC oxygen therapy was applied for 42 d in the 40 participants. Overall, individuals with HFNC oxygenation therapy received 449.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 312-850) kcal/d and 19.25 (IQR, 13.9-33.3) g/d protein. Twenty-one participants treated with enteral nutrition received 387 (IQR, 273-931) kcal/d and 18.5 (IQR, 13.9-33.3) g/d protein, whereas those with oral feeding (n = 13) received higher totals of calories, 600 (IQR, 459-850) kcal/d (P = 0.056), and protein, 22 (IQR, 20-45) g/d (P = 0.005). Four participants received parenteral nutrition alone, providing 543 (IQR, 375-886.5) kcal/d and 8.7 (IQR, 0-20) g/d protein. When parenteral nutrition was administered with enteral nutrition, it provided only 324 (IQR, 290-358) kcal/d. Two participants did not receive any nutritional support. The overall length of stay in the intensive care unit was 8 (IQR, 5-17.5) d. Participants receiving enteral nutrition had a longer stay (14 d; IQR, 8-20) than the oral-diet group (4 d; IQR, 2-10; P0.03). The rate of intubation after HFNC therapy was not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.586).Administration of HFNC oxygen therapy was associated with significant underfeeding. In order to reach optimal caloric and protein intake, parenteral nutrition may be considered.