Background: Refeeding syndrome (RS) is a neglected, potentially fatal syndrome that occurs in malnourished patients undergoing rapid nutritional replenishment after a period of fasting. The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) recently released new criteria for RS risk and diagnosis. Real-life data on its incidence are still limited. Methods: We consecutively enrolled patients admitted to the Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology Unit of our center. The RS risk prevalence and incidence of RS were evaluated according to ASPEN. The length of stay (LOS), mortality, and re-admission rate within 30 days were assessed. Results: Among 203 admitted patients, 98 (48.3%) were at risk of RS; RS occurred in 38 patients (18.7% of the entire cohort). Patients diagnosed with RS had a higher mean LOS (12.5 days ± 7.9) than those who were not diagnosed with RS (7.1 ± 4.2) (p < 0.0001). Nine patients (4.4%) died. Body mass index (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69–0.97), RS diagnosis (OR 10.1; 95% CI 2.4–42.6), and medical nutritional support within 48 h (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02–0.56) were associated with mortality. Conclusions: RS incidence is high among clinical wards, influencing clinical outcomes. Awareness among clinicians is necessary to identify patients at risk and to support those developing this syndrome.
Background: Hospital malnutrition affects nearly 30% of patients in medical wards and correlates with worse outcomes. An early assessment is necessary to stratify the risk of short-term outcomes and mortality. The predictive role of COntrolling NUTritional status (CONUT) score in this context has not yet been elucidated in Western countries. We aimed to test CONUT at admission as a predictive score of hospital outcomes, in an Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology Department of an Italian Tertiary Care University hospital. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients admitted to our center, stratifying them into the four CONUT classes (normal = 0–1; mild = 2–4; moderate = 5–8; severe = 9–12 points) according to serum albumin (g/dL), total lymphocyte count (/mm3), and total cholesterol (mg/dL); the primary outcome measure was length of stay (LOS) and the secondary one was in-hospital mortality. Results: Out of a total of 203 patients enrolled, 44 (21.7%) patients had a normal status (0–1), 66 (32.5%) had a mild impairment (2–4), 68 (33.5%) had a moderate impairment (5–8), and 25 (12.3%) a severe impairment (9–12). The mean LOS was 8.24 ± 5.75 days; nine patients died. A moderate-severe CONUT correlated with a higher LOS at the univariate [HR 1.86 (95% CI 13.9–3.47); p < 0.0001] and multivariate analysis [HR 1.52 (95% CI 1.10–2.09); p = 0.01]. The CONUT score was also a predictor of mortality, with an AUC of 0.831 (95% CI 0.680–0.982) and with an optimal cut-off at 8.5 points. Nutritional supplementation within 48 h from admission correlated with lower mortality [OR 0.12 (95% CI 0.02–0.56) p = 0.006]. Conclusions: CONUT is a reliable and simple predictor of LOS and in-hospital mortality in medical wards.
In Europe and the United States, approximately 1100 and 1800 liver transplantations, respectively, are performed every year for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared with an annual incidence of 65,000 and 39,000 new cases, respectively. Because of organ shortages, proper patient selection is crucial, especially for those exceeding the Milan criteria. Downstaging is the reduction of the HCC burden to meet the eligibility criteria for liver transplantation. Many techniques can be used in downstaging, including ablation, chemoembolisation, radioembolisation and systemic treatments, with a reported success rate of 60–70%. In recent years, an increasing number of patient responders to downstaging procedures has been included in the waitlist, generally with a comparable five-year post-transplant survival but with a higher probability of dropout than HCC patients within the Milan criteria. While the Milan criteria are generally accepted as the endpoint of downstaging, the upper limits of tumour burden for downstaging HCC for liver transplantation are controversial. Very challenging situations involve HCC patients with large nodules, macrovascular invasion or even extrahepatic metastasis at baseline who respond to increasingly more effective downstaging procedures and who aspire to be placed on the waitlist for transplantation. This narrative review analyses the most important evidence available on cohorts subjected to “extended” downstaging, including HCC patients over the up-to-seven criteria and over the University of California San Francisco downstaging criteria. We also address surrogate markers of biological aggressiveness, such as alpha-fetoprotein and the response stability to locoregional treatments, which are very useful in selecting responders to downstaging procedures for waitlisting inclusion.
Cirrhotic patients with severe thrombocytopenia are at increased risk of bleeding during invasive procedures. The need for preprocedural prophylaxis aimed at reducing the risk of bleeding in cirrhotic patients with thrombocytopenia who undergo scheduled procedures is assessed via the platelet count; however, establishing a minimum threshold considered safe is challenging. A platelet count ≥ 50000/μL is a frequent target, but levels vary by provider, procedure, and specific patient. Over the years, this value has changed several times according to the different guidelines proposed in the literature. According to the latest guidelines, many procedures can be performed at any level of platelet count, which should not necessarily be checked before the procedure. In this review, we aim to investigate and describe how the guidelines have evolved in recent years in the evaluation of the minimum platelet count threshold required to perform different invasive procedures, according to their bleeding risk.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.