Assessment of Nutritional Status of Critically Ill Patients Using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool and Phase Angle

Vitamin B12 insufficiency and deficiency: a review of nondisease risk factors

Vitamin B12 deficiency and insufficiency can lead to both hematological and neurological impairments. This review examines nondisease causes and risk factors associated with dietary availability, such as eating habits, food processing, cooking techniques, and bioavailability, as well as increased physiological needs and iatrogenic factors linked to medication use or surgical procedures. As a result of these nondisease influences, groups at higher risk include vegans, vegetarians, older adults, individuals with limited diets, breastfed and preterm infants, and those who primarily consume foods prepared or cooked in ways that reduce vitamin B12 content, as well as individuals on certain medications or who have undergone specific surgeries. Recognizing these diverse risk factors helps develop strategies for prevention and intervention to minimize the adverse health effects related to B12 deficiency and insufficiency.

Clinical applications of body composition and functional status tools for nutrition assessment of hospitalized adults: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

No global consensus exists on diagnostic criteria for malnutrition. Muscular deficits and functional impairments are major components of available malnutrition diagnostic frameworks because these facets of nutrition status significantly impact outcomes. The purpose of this review is to explore which body composition assessment (BCA) and functional status assessment (FSA) tools are being used for nutrition assessment (NA) and monitoring the response to nutrition interventions (RNIs) in adult inpatients.

METHODS

A literature search of Embase, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central was performed to identify studies that used BCA and/or FSA tools for NA (along with an accepted NA diagnostic framework) and/or for monitoring RNI in adult inpatients.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3667 articles; 94 were included in the review. The number of studies using BCA and/or FSA tools for NA was 47 and also 47 for monitoring RNI. Seventy-nine percent of studies used bioimpedance for BCA, and 97% that included FSA utilized handgrip strength. When compared against sets of diagnostic criteria, many of the BCA and FSA tools showed promising associations with nutrition status.

CONCLUSION

Bioimpedance methods are the most widely used bedside BCA tools, and handgrip strength is the most widely used FSA tool; however, these methods are being used with a variety of protocols, algorithms, and interpretation practices in heterogeneous populations. To create a standardized nutrition status assessment process there is a need for validation studies on bedside methods and the development of globally standardized assessment protocols in clinical inpatient settings.

Estimating the time point for nutritional failure in patients suffering from acute brain attacks in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Severe brain attack patients demonstrate hypermetabolic state and gastrointestinal dysfunction, leading to faster onset of nutritional failure.

AIM

To estimate the time point where the development of nutritional failure is more probable among patients with acute brain attacks in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Direct bedside observation for selected nutritional parameters was performed. When enteral nutrition was initiated, observation was performed at five points over 9 days.

FINDINGS

84 patients with 55% mortality risk and on mechanical ventilation were included. Over the observation period, gastric residual volume increased (144 ml vs 196 ml), body weight decreased (79.4 kg vs 74.3 kg), and serum albumin reduced (3.6 g/dl to 3.1 g/dl). Caloric attainment and malnutrition score deteriorated, and feeding-related complications increased. Nutritional failure was evidently prevalent between the third and fifth day of observation.

CONCLUSION

An earlier period of enteral nutrition entails higher probability of nutritional failure among severe brain attack patients in the ICU.

Prognostic Performance of NUTRIC Score in Quantifying Malnutrition Risk in the Critically Ill in Congruence With the Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is still no concrete guidance for assessing malnutrition risk in the critically ill. Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (NUTRIC) score is undertaken cautiously compared with other validated tools such as bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). This study aimed to assess the malnutrition risk in the critically ill using NUTRIC score and assess its congruency with the BIA.

METHODS

In this cross-section observational study, intensive care unit (ICU) patients from various etiologies were assessed using the earlier tools in addition to other prognostic markers (Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II] and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] scores), caloric attainment, and feeding complications.

RESULTS

Of a total 411 assessed patients, 313 (76.2%) were enterally fed, and 318 (77.4%) were mechanically ventilated. Mean age was 60.7 years, and the median of the assessment since admission was the 12th day. Of those enterally fed patients, 57.9% attained the caloric requirements. Both APACHE II and SOFA scores were compatible in ascertaining ICU mortality at a moderate level (17.88 and 7.17, respectively). The NUTRIC score and phase angle (PA) measured by BIA revealed no differences in the malnutrition risk between patients with and without enteral nutrition. However, regression indicated that the NUTRIC score has explained only 1.1% of the variance of PA after controlling other covariates (β = -0.222, P = .009, confidence interval = -0.31 to -0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

NUTRIC score has a limited prediction to the urgency of aggressive nutrition therapy within the early period of ICU admission.