Cargando…
Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools
BACKGROUND: This cohort study aimed to compare the performance of the 2015 diagnostic criteria for malnutrition of the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Short-Form of Mini-N...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8825536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35242865 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-6383 |
_version_ | 1784647232131170304 |
---|---|
author | Hua, Xiong-Huai Shi, Ke-Feng Yu, Yong-Kui Li, Hao-Miao Ma, Fei Sun, Hai-Bo Qian, Ru-Lin Li, Yin |
author_facet | Hua, Xiong-Huai Shi, Ke-Feng Yu, Yong-Kui Li, Hao-Miao Ma, Fei Sun, Hai-Bo Qian, Ru-Lin Li, Yin |
author_sort | Hua, Xiong-Huai |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: This cohort study aimed to compare the performance of the 2015 diagnostic criteria for malnutrition of the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Short-Form of Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF) in detecting malnutrition risk and predicting postoperative complications and the failure of early oral feeding (EOF) programs in esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: The 4 tools were used to conduct malnutrition assessments before surgery. The patients were divided into the groups of severe malnutrition and mild/moderate malnutrition and the incidences of the endpoints were observed. Multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Two hundred and nineteen consecutive esophageal cancer patients were included in the study. The prevalence rates of severe malnutrition as determined by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, NRS 2002, and MNA-SF were 24.7%, 29.7%, 23.7%, and 16.0%, respectively. The moderate/severe malnutrition risk screened by the MUST had a high sensitivity (100.0%) with malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria. In total, 42 (19.2%) patients experienced major complications, and the incidence rate of EOF failure was 7.3%. The severe malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, and NRS 2002 were comparable in predicting the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage, readmission to intensive care units (ICUs), and EOF failure, but the ESPEN 2015 criteria was better in predicting postoperative overall complications, major complications, and delayed hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The ESPEN 2015 criteria specializes in identifying severe malnutrition and is better in predicting adverse surgical outcomes; however, the MUST and NRS 2002 are better superior in detecting early malnutrition and are also valuable in the perioperative management in esophageal surgery. It is recommended that the MUST be used as the malnutrition screening tool before the ESPEN 2015 criteria is applied. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8825536 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | AME Publishing Company |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88255362022-03-02 Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools Hua, Xiong-Huai Shi, Ke-Feng Yu, Yong-Kui Li, Hao-Miao Ma, Fei Sun, Hai-Bo Qian, Ru-Lin Li, Yin Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: This cohort study aimed to compare the performance of the 2015 diagnostic criteria for malnutrition of the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Short-Form of Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF) in detecting malnutrition risk and predicting postoperative complications and the failure of early oral feeding (EOF) programs in esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: The 4 tools were used to conduct malnutrition assessments before surgery. The patients were divided into the groups of severe malnutrition and mild/moderate malnutrition and the incidences of the endpoints were observed. Multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Two hundred and nineteen consecutive esophageal cancer patients were included in the study. The prevalence rates of severe malnutrition as determined by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, NRS 2002, and MNA-SF were 24.7%, 29.7%, 23.7%, and 16.0%, respectively. The moderate/severe malnutrition risk screened by the MUST had a high sensitivity (100.0%) with malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria. In total, 42 (19.2%) patients experienced major complications, and the incidence rate of EOF failure was 7.3%. The severe malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, and NRS 2002 were comparable in predicting the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage, readmission to intensive care units (ICUs), and EOF failure, but the ESPEN 2015 criteria was better in predicting postoperative overall complications, major complications, and delayed hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The ESPEN 2015 criteria specializes in identifying severe malnutrition and is better in predicting adverse surgical outcomes; however, the MUST and NRS 2002 are better superior in detecting early malnutrition and are also valuable in the perioperative management in esophageal surgery. It is recommended that the MUST be used as the malnutrition screening tool before the ESPEN 2015 criteria is applied. AME Publishing Company 2022-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8825536/ /pubmed/35242865 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-6383 Text en 2022 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Hua, Xiong-Huai Shi, Ke-Feng Yu, Yong-Kui Li, Hao-Miao Ma, Fei Sun, Hai-Bo Qian, Ru-Lin Li, Yin Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools |
title | Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools |
title_full | Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools |
title_fullStr | Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools |
title_full_unstemmed | Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools |
title_short | Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools |
title_sort | nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8825536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35242865 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-6383 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huaxionghuai nutritionalassessmentinesophagealfasttracksurgerycomparisonsof4objectivemalnutritionscreeningtools AT shikefeng nutritionalassessmentinesophagealfasttracksurgerycomparisonsof4objectivemalnutritionscreeningtools AT yuyongkui nutritionalassessmentinesophagealfasttracksurgerycomparisonsof4objectivemalnutritionscreeningtools AT lihaomiao nutritionalassessmentinesophagealfasttracksurgerycomparisonsof4objectivemalnutritionscreeningtools AT mafei nutritionalassessmentinesophagealfasttracksurgerycomparisonsof4objectivemalnutritionscreeningtools AT sunhaibo nutritionalassessmentinesophagealfasttracksurgerycomparisonsof4objectivemalnutritionscreeningtools AT qianrulin nutritionalassessmentinesophagealfasttracksurgerycomparisonsof4objectivemalnutritionscreeningtools AT liyin nutritionalassessmentinesophagealfasttracksurgerycomparisonsof4objectivemalnutritionscreeningtools |