A multicenter propensity score matched analysis in 73,843 patients of an association of nutritional risk with mortality, length of stay and readmission rates

Insights into the associated risk factors of malnutrition among nursing home residents: A longitudinal study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Malnutrition often remains undetected in older persons, leading to increased health problems and comorbidity, prolonged hospital stays and readmissions. In 2020, data from the interRAI Home Care (interRAI HC) instrument was used to determine malnutrition status according to some of the criteria of the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM). The interRAI HC instrument showed to be effective as a screening tool for the risk of malnutrition. The goal of the present study is to use the interRAI Long Term Care Facilities (interRAI LTCF) instrument for nursing home residents to identify factors related to older people's health that are significantly associated with the development of malnutrition.

METHODS

This study analyzes data collected in the period 2019-2023 from nursing home residents, 65 or older, with a follow-up period of 1 year. After applying the GLIM criteria to the available interRAI LTCF data, a cross-sectional sample a longitudinal sample were analyzed by means of bivariate analysis. Factors included in the bivariate analysis were based in previous studies and expert opinion. Unadjusted and adjusted regression models were built to explore associations between several potential risk factors and nutritional status.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 5598 older people with a mean age of 83.98 ± 7.30 years old and 71.2 % being female. Most people needed extensive assistance with activities of daily living (70.9%) and had at least a mild cognitive impairment (63.9%). According to the GLIM definition using the interRAI items, 8.43% of the residents were malnourished and 4.67% of the residents became malnourished over the period of 1 year. The final adjusted logistic regression yielded significant odds ratios for seven determinants: age (O.R. 1.03; C.I.: 1.01; 1.04), depressive symptoms (O.R.: 1.32; 1.01; 1.73), assistance needed for walking (O.R. 1.49; C.I.: 1.13; 1.95), wandering behavior (O.R. 1.16; C.I.: 1.01; 1.33), falls (O.R. 1.17; C.I.: 1.02; 1.35), visual impairment (O.R. 1.22; C.I.: 1.05; 1.42) and diabetes (protective factor - O.R.: 0.67; C.I.: 0.46; 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed the main risk factor for malnourishment in nursing home residents, such as age, depressions, assistance for walking, wandering and visual impairment. These significant factors can be used to identify people at risk of malnourishment. Periodically screening residents with the interRAI LTCF can help identify malnourished residents or residents at risk of malnourishment.

Efficiency of a technology-assisted nutritional screening system: A retrospective analysis of 11,722 admissions in a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Nutritional screening is essential for addressing malnutrition and its consequences. However, routine implementation in large hospitals faces several challenges. To overcome these obstacles, the Clinical Nutrition Service of a tertiary hospital developed a technology-assisted nutritional screening system. This study evaluates the system's efficiency in detecting and assessing patients at nutritional risk upon hospital admission. It also examines the association between nutritional risk, clinical outcomes, and sociodemographic characteristics.

METHODS

This retrospective, analytical, observational study examined 11,722 hospital admissions of adult patients in 2019, each with a minimum hospital stay of 48 hours (h) in a tertiary hospital. Rates and timing for the detection, referral, and assessment of patients at nutritional risk were calculated. Participants were divided into low (Malnutrition Screening Tool [MST] < 2 points) and moderate/high (MST ≥2) nutritional risk groups to evaluate the relationship between nutritional risk and clinical and demographic variables.

RESULTS

We found that 91% of patients underwent nutritional screening within the first hours of admission, with a median time of 9 h from admission to screening (interquartile range [IQR] 3-19). The prevalence of nutritional risk (MST ≥2) was 21%. All patients identified as being at nutritional risk were immediately referred for a nutritional assessment once identified, with a median referral time of 0 h (IQR 0-0). This assessment was carried out by a nutritionist for 98% of these patients, with a median time of 19 h from referral to assessment (IQR 6-24). Compared to the low-risk group, patients with nutritional risk were older, had higher rates of mortality and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), longer hospital stays, and a higher proportion of men and cancer diagnoses (p< 0.001 for all comparisons). After adjusting for age and sex, nutritional risk was significantly associated with a higher probability of ICU admission (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.13; 95% CI 1.02-1.24) and in-hospital mortality (OR 2.32; 95% CI 1.97-2.73).

CONCLUSION

The integration of technology into nutritional screening was highly efficient for early detection and assessment of at-risk patients upon hospital admission. Features of this system could guide other hospitals. The association found between nutritional risk and clinical outcomes emphasizes the importance of prompt and appropriate nutritional interventions.

Malnutrition prevalence in cancer patients in Belgium: The ONCOCARE study

RATIONALE

Unintentional weight loss and malnutrition are common among cancer patients. Malnutrition has been associated with impaired health-related quality of life, less well-tolerated chemotherapy regimens and shorter life duration. In Belgium there is a lack of epidemiological data on malnutrition in oncology patients at advanced stages of the disease.

METHODS

Malnutrition assessment data was collected through a prospective, observational study in 328 patients who started a neoadjuvant anticancer therapy regimen or who started 1st, 2nd or 3rd line anticancer therapy for a metastatic cancer via 3 visits according to regular clinical practice (baseline visit (BV) maximum 4 weeks before start therapy, 1st Follow up visit (FUV1) ± 6 weeks after start therapy, FUV2 ± 4 months after start therapy). Malnutrition screening was evaluated using the Nutritional Risk Screening score 2002 (NRS-2002)and the diagnosis of malnutrition by the GLIM criteria. In addition, SARC-F questionnaire and Fearon criteria were used respectively to screen for sarcopenia and cachexia.

RESULTS

Prevalence of malnutrition risk at BV was high: 54.5% of the patients had a NRS ≥ 3 (NRS 2002) and increased during the study period (FUV1: 73.2%, FUV2: 70.1%). Prevalence of malnutrition based on physician subjective assessment (PSA) remained stable over the study period but was much lower compared to NRS results (14.0%-16.5%). At BV, only 10% of the patients got a nutrition plan and 43.9% received ≤ 70% of nutritional needs, percentage increased during FU period (FUV1: 68.4%, FUV2: 67.6%). Prevalence of sarcopenia and cachexia were respectively 12.4% and 38.1% at BV and without significant variation during the study period, but higher than assessed by PSA (11.6% and 6.7% respectively). Figures were also higher compared to PSA. There were modifications in cancer treatment at FUV1 (25.2%) and at FUV2 (50.8%). The main reasons for these modifications at FUV1 were adverse events and tolerability. Patient reported daily questionnaires of food intake showed early nutritional deficits, preceding clinical signs of malnutrition, and therefore can be very useful in the ambulatory setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of malnutrition and cachexia was high in advanced cancer patients and underestimated by physician assessment. Earlier and rigorous detection of nutritional deficit and adjusted nutritional intake could lead to improved clinical outcomes in cancer patients. Reporting of daily caloric intake by patients was also very helpful with regards to nutritional assessment.

Perioperative Management of Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with ulcerative colitis may require colectomy for severe disease unresponsive or refractory to pharmacological therapy. Managing ulcerative colitis is complicated because there are many factors at play, including patient optimization and treatment, as the guidance varies on the ideal perioperative use of corticosteroids, immunomodulators, biologics, and small molecule agents.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic literature review was performed to describe the current status of perioperative management of ulcerative colitis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Cochrane databases were used.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published between January 2000 and January 2022, in any language, were included. Articles regarding pediatric or endoscopic management were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Perioperative management of ulcerative colitis was included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Successful management, including reducing surgical complication rates, was measured.

RESULTS

A total of 121 studies were included in this review, including 23 meta-analyses or systematic reviews, 25 reviews, and 51 cohort studies.

LIMITATIONS

Qualitative review including all study types. The varied nature of study types precludes quantitative comparison.

CONCLUSION

Indications for colectomy in ulcerative colitis include severe disease unresponsive to medical treatment and colitis-associated neoplasia. Urgent colectomy has a higher mortality rate than elective colectomy. Corticosteroids are associated with postsurgical infectious complications and should be stopped or weaned before surgery. Biologics are not associated with adverse postoperative effects and do not necessarily need to be stopped preoperatively. Additionally, the clinician must assess individuals' comorbidities, nutrition status, and risk of venous thromboembolism. Nutritional imbalance should be corrected, ideally at the preoperative period. Postoperatively, corticosteroids can be tapered on the basis of the length of preoperative corticosteroid use.

Offering Guidance and Learning to Prescribers to Initiate Parenteral Nutrition using a Validated Electronic Decision TREE (OLIVE TREE)

Parenteral nutrition (PN) is recommended in patients nutritionally at risk and unable to receive oral or enteral nutrition. A standardized electronic PN order format could enhance appropriate PN prescribing. We developed the OLIVE TREE (Offering guidance and Learning to prescribers to Initiate PN using a Validated Electronic decision TREE), embedded in our electronic health record. We aimed to evaluate its validity and impact on physicians' prescribing behavior. A non-randomized before-after study was carried out in a tertiary care center. The OLIVE TREE comprises 120 individual items. A process validation was performed to determine interrater agreement between a pharmacist and the treating physician. To estimate the proportion of patients for whom the OLIVE TREE had an effective and potential impact on physicians' prescribing behavior, a proof of concept study was conducted. The proportion of patients for whom PN was averted and the proportion of decisions not in line with the recommendation were also calculated. The process validation in 20 patients resulted in an interrater agreement of 95.0%. The proof of concept in 73 patients resulted in an effective and potential impact on prescribing behavior in 50.7% and 79.5% of these patients, respectively. Initiation of PN was not averted and recommendations of the OLIVE TREE were overruled in 42.5% of the patients. Our newly developed OLIVE TREE has a good process validity. A substantial impact on prescribing behavior was observed, although initiation of PN was not avoided. In the next phase, the decision tree will be implemented hospital-wide.