No abstract

IntroductionNutritional screening is a fundamental aspect of the initial evaluation of the hospitalised patient. Body Mass Index (BMI) in association with other parameters is a good marker of malnutrition (<18.5 kg/m2), but it presents the handicap that the great majority of patients cannot be weighed and measured. For this reason it is necessary to find other indicators that can be measured in these patients.Objectives1) Analyse the relationship between BMI and Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC); 2) establish a cut-off point of MUAC equivalent to BMI <18.5 kg/m2.Materials and MethodsThe anthropometric data of patients hospitalised over the period 2004–2013 were retrospectively revised. The following variables were collected: weight, height, BMI, MUAC, sex and age.Results1373 patients were evaluated, who presented a mean weight of: 65.04±15.51 kg; height: 1.66±0.09 m; BMI: 23.48±5.03 kg/m2; MUAC: 26.95±4.50 cm; age: 56.24±16.77. MUAC correlates suitably to BMI by means of the following equation (simple linear regression): BMI = − 0.042 + 0.873 x MUAC (cm) (R2 = 0.609), with a Pearson r value of 0.78 (p<0.001). The area under the curve of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.94; p<0.001). The MUAC value ≤22.5 cm presented a sensitivity of 67.7%, specificity of 94.5%, and a correct classification of 90%. No significant statistical differences were found in the cut-off point of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition based on sex (p = 0.115) and age (p = 0.694).Conclusions1) MUAC correlates positively and significantly with BMI. 2) MUAC ≤ 22.5 cm correlates properly with a BMI of <18.5 kg/m2, independent of the age or sex of the patient, although there are other alternatives. MUAC constitutes a useful tool as a marker of malnutrition, fundamentally in patients for whom weight and height cannot be determined.

Background and aimNo marker to categorise the severity of chronic intestinal failure (CIF) has been developed. A 1-year international survey was carried out to investigate whether the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism clinical classification of CIF, based on the type and volume of the intravenous supplementation (IVS), could be an indicator of CIF severity.MethodsAt baseline, participating home parenteral nutrition (HPN) centres enrolled all adults with ongoing CIF due to non-malignant disease; demographic data, body mass index, CIF mechanism, underlying disease, HPN duration and IVS category were recorded for each patient. The type of IVS was classified as fluid and electrolyte alone (FE) or parenteral nutrition admixture (PN). The mean daily IVS volume, calculated on a weekly basis, was categorised as <1, 1–2, 2–3 and >3 L/day. The severity of CIF was determined by patient outcome (still on HPN, weaned from HPN, deceased) and the occurrence of major HPN/CIF-related complications: intestinal failure-associated liver disease (IFALD), catheter-related venous thrombosis and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI).ResultsFifty-one HPN centres included 2194 patients. The analysis showed that both IVS type and volume were independently associated with the odds of weaning from HPN (significantly higher for PN <1 L/day than for FE and all PN >1 L/day), patients’ death (lower for FE, p=0.079), presence of IFALD cholestasis/liver failure and occurrence of CRBSI (significantly higher for PN 2–3 and PN >3 L/day).ConclusionsThe type and volume of IVS required by patients with CIF could be indicators to categorise the severity of CIF in both clinical practice and research protocols.

BackgroundMalnutrition is highly prevalent in hospitalized patients and results in a worsened clinical course as well as an increased length of stay, mortality, and costs. Therefore, simple nutrition screening systems, such as CIPA (control of food intake, protein, anthropometry), may be implemented to facilitate the patient’s recovery process. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing such screening tool in a tertiary hospital, consistent with the lack of similar, published studies on any hospital nutrition screening system.MethodsThe present study is carried out as an open, controlled, randomized study on patients that were admitted to the Internal Medicine and the General and Digestive Surgery ward; the patients were randomized to either a control or an intervention group (n = 824, thereof 412 patients in each of the two study arms). The control group underwent usual inpatient clinical care, while the intervention group was evaluated with the CIPA screening tool for early detection of malnutrition and treated accordingly.CIPA nutrition screening was performed upon hospital admission and classified positive when at least one of the following parameters was met: 72 h food intake control < 50%, serum albumin < 3 g/dL, body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (or mid-upper arm circumference ≤ 22.5 cm). In this case, the doctor decided on whether or not providing nutrition support.The following variables will be evaluated: hospital length of stay (primary endpoint), mortality, 3-month readmission, and in-hospital complications. Likewise, the quality of life questionnaires EQ-5D-5 L are being collected for all patients at hospital admission, discharge, and 3 months post-discharge. Analysis of cost-effectiveness will be performed by measuring effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost per patient will be established by identifying health care resource utilization; cost-effectiveness will be determined through the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We will calculate the incremental cost per QALY gained with respect to the intervention.DiscussionThis ongoing trial aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the malnutrition screening tool CIPA in a tertiary hospital.Trial registrationClinical Trial.gov (NCT02721706).First receivevd: March 1, 2016Last updated: April 8, 2017Last verified: April 2017

Background and aim. The safety and effectiveness of an HPN program depends on both the expertise and the management procedures of the HPN center. We aimed to know the modalities needed to provide the home parenteral nutrition (HPN)-program and the types of intravenous supplementation (IVS)-admixtures supplied to patients with chronic intestinal failure (CIF) in different countries. Methods. In March 2015, 65 centers from 22 countries enrolled 3239 patients (benign disease 90.1%, malignant disease 9.9%), recording the patient, CIF and HPN characteristics in a structured database. The HPN-provider was categorized as health care system local pharmacy (LP) or home care company (HCC). The IVS-admixture was categorized as fluids and electrolytes alone (FE) or parenteral nutrition, either commercially premixed (PA) or customized to the individual patient (CA), alone or plus extra FE (PAFE or CAFE). Results. HPN-provider: HCC 66%, LP 34%; no difference between benign-CIF and malignant-CIF. LP was the main modality in 11 Countries; HCC prevailed in 4 European countries, Israel, USA, South America and Oceania (p<0.001). IVS-admixture: FE 10%, PA 17%, PAFE 17%, CA 38%, CAFE 18%. PA+PAFE use was greater in malignant-CIF and CA+CAFE use was greater in benign-CIF (p<0.001). PA+PAFE prevailed in those Countries where LP was the main HPN-provider and CA+CAFE prevailed where the main HPN-provider was HCC (p<0.001). Conclusions. The HPN provision and the IVS-admixture types differ greatly among countries, among HPN centers and between benign-CIF and malignant-CIF. As both HPN provider and IVS-admixture types may play a role in the safety and effectiveness of HPN therapy, criteria to homogenize HPN programs are needed, to give patients the same opportunity to receive appropriate HPN therapy.