The evaluation of consumed food portions as a screening test for malnutrition in the older people living in a nursing home: A cross-sectional pilot study

IntroductionThe Self Evaluation of Food Intake (SEFI®) is a simple tool to assess food intake.AimsTo evaluate the validity of SEFI® to screen malnutrition compared to the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA)® as the reference method (primary) and other screening tools (secondary); to assess the feasibility of SEFI® (secondary) in older people living in a nursing home.MethodsQuantitative, non-interventional, cross-sectional, monocentric pilot study. Patients were included in a 143-beds nursing home. The SEFI® visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 10, and the evaluation of consumed portions of served food by the general practioner (SEFI® consumed portions) were performed after the MNA®. Malnutrition was defined as MNA®<17.StatisticsYouden method and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.ResultsOut of 128 patients, 93 were included: 72% women, mean age (±SD), 88 ± 7 yr, body mass index, 25.9 ± 6.1, MNA®<17, 26% (24/93), SEFI® consumed portions ≤50%, 29% (27/93) of patients. The feasibility of SEFI®  VAS and consumed portions were respectively 0 and 100% (93/93). The predictive performance of SEFI® consumed portions for the diagnosis of malnutrition was good: area under the curve = 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69–0.93]; sensitivity 75.0% (n = 18/24, 95%CI, 57.7–92.3), specificity 87.0% (n = 60/69, 77.0–94.9), positive predictive value 66.7% (n = 18/27, 48.9–84.4), and negative predictive value 90.9% (n = 60/66, 80.0–93.9).ConclusionsSEFI® is feasible and useful for detecting malnutrition in nursing home residents.     

Complementarity of nutritional screening tools to GLIM criteria on malnutrition diagnosis in hospitalised patients: A secondary analysis of a longitudinal study

1. Download : Download high-res image (312KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

外科胰腺肿瘤患者营养不足和营养风险发生率的前瞻性调查研究

目的　调查外科胰腺肿瘤患者营养不足和营养风险发生率。方法　对2014年1月至2015年12月,因各种胰腺肿瘤入住北京医院普外科,接受手术治疗的121例住院患者,根据肿瘤性质分为胰腺癌组和其他胰腺肿瘤组,主要应用营养风险筛查2002方法,前瞻性比较不同胰腺肿瘤患者的营养不足和营养风险发生率以及物理测量、体成分和外周血蛋白质水平等,记录临床结局。结果　121例符合入选标准的胰腺肿瘤患者进入本研究,胰腺癌组90例和其他胰腺肿瘤组31例,平均年龄（61.9±13.6）岁;平均体质量指数（23.20±2.95）kg/m2;上臂围（28.8±3.5）cm;肌肉组织量（44.6±7.4）kg;脂肪组织量（16.8±7.6）kg;两组在人体测量和体成分等方面差异无统计学意义（均P＞0.05）;胰腺癌组空腹血糖［（6.45±2.47）mmol/L］显著高于对照组［（4.95±0.79）mmol/L］（P＜0.001）,白蛋白［（39.0±4.7）g/L比(42.3±2.9)g/L,P＜0.001］,总蛋白［（62.8±6.2）g/L比(66.3±2.9)g/L,P＜0.001］和前白蛋白［（136.1±85.4）mg/L比(197.8±112.6),P=0.011］均显著低于对照组;营养不足发生率为4.1%,营养风险发生率78.5%;其中胰腺癌组营养风险发生率显著高于其他胰腺肿瘤组（91.1%比38.7%,χ2=36.525,P＜0.001）。结论　外科胰腺癌患者营养风险发生率较高,蛋白水平低和糖代谢异常,可导致住院时间延长。     

胃肠道肿瘤术后辅助化疗病人营养不良现状调查与分析

目的 :通过对胃肠道肿瘤术后辅助化疗病人进行营养风险筛查,调查营养不良的发生率并进行原因分析,为该类病人临床营养干预治疗提供依据。方法 :自2016年7月至12月对入住普通外科胃肠肿瘤术后并行辅助化疗的181例病人,运用PG-SGA进行营养风险筛查,同时检测血清白蛋白、血红蛋白和白细胞,记录病人化疗期间的不良反应。根据性别、年龄、不同肿瘤部位、化疗疗程、症状等进行不同分值的亚组分析。结果 :所有181例病人均完成营养风险筛查,其中PG-SGA得分在0~3分的69例(占38.1%),4~8分即中度营养不良的71例(占39.2%);大于8分即存在严重营养不良的41例(占22.7%),4分以上即存在营养不良的共112例占61.9%。对112例营养不良病人进一步分析:胃癌病人PG-SGA得分明显高于直肠癌病人(P0.05)和结肠癌病人(P0.01);男性发生率高于女性(P0.05);年龄大于65岁的营养不良发生率高于65岁以下病人(P0.01)。PG-SGA得分越高化疗药物引起的恶心、呕吐等毒副反应越重,血红蛋白、白细胞水平也越低(P0.01)。营养不良与病人化疗疗程无统计学差异。结论 :胃肠道肿瘤术后辅助化疗病人营养不良发生率高,肿瘤部位、性别、年龄和化疗不良反应等是高危因素。     

相位角预测手术病人营养风险及住院时间

目的:探讨生物电阻抗相位角(phase angle,PA)与胸外手术病人营养风险、住院时间(hospital length of stay,LOS)的关系。方法:60例胸部手术病人,应用营养风险筛查2002(NRS2002)、主观全面评定(Subjective Global Assessment,SGA)、白蛋白、人体成分分析、PA评价其营养风险及LOS。结果 :与对照组比较,手术病人PA偏低,男(6.0±1.0)vs(3.85±1.0),女(5.4±0.9)vs(4.9±0.6),P0.01。与正常PA比较,低PA者营养风险相对危险度,用NRS2002。无风险(RR 2.8,95%CI=1.2~6.9),中度风险(RR 3.9,95%CI=1.8~8.6),重度风险(RR4.2,95%CI=2.0~8.7);用SGA。营养良好(RR 2.5,95%CI=0.9~6.9),中度营养不良(RR 4.4,95%CI=2.1~9.4),重度营养不良(RR 3.9,95%CI=1.9~8.0),与NRS2002相似;与正常PA比较,低PA者住院时间倾向于延长(LOS≥21 d,RR=4.4,95%CI=2.2~8.8)。结论 :低PA与手术病人营养风险、LOS延长密切关联。PA测量有助于快速明确病人的营养风险对于确定病人营养干预和判断疾病转归提供了客观依据。     

内分泌科住院患者营养风险筛查及营养支持应用状况

目的调查内分泌科住院患者营养风险、营养不良（不足）、超重和肥胖发生率及营养支持应用情况。方法采用定点连续抽样,选择2008年9月至12月在北京协和医院内分泌科住院的患者进行营养风险筛查2002（NRS2002）,于患者人院次日早晨实施,并调查患者2周内（或至出院时）的营养支持状况,分析营养风险和营养支持之间的关系。NRS2002≥3分为有营养风险,体重指数（BMI）〈18．5kg／m。并结合患者临床情况判定为营养不足。结果共有152例患者入选并全部完成NRS2002筛查,NRS2002的适用率为100％;营养不足和营养风险的发生率分别为7．9％和27．6％。老年患者（≥60岁）营养风险发生率为36．8％,明显高于中青年患者（18—59岁）的20．2％（P=0．023）。在42例有营养风险的患者中,有9例（21．4％）接受了营养支持;在无营养风险的110例患者中,有12例（10．9％）接受了营养支持。所有患者肠外和肠内营养的应用比例为1：3．2。结论NRS2002适用于内分泌科住院患者的营养筛查。内分泌科有一定量的住院患者存在营养风险或营养不足,营养支持应用仍存在某些不合理性,应推广和应用基于证据的营养支持指南以改善此状况。     

Influence of a nutritional intervention on dietary intake and quality of life in cancer patients: A randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveWeight loss is common in patients with malignant tumors and it can adversely affect quality of life and survival. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of a nutritional intervention in cancer patients in an outpatient setting.MethodsCancer outpatients (N = 58) who were classified as undernourished or at high risk for undernutrition by the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 tool were randomized into two groups. One group (n = 30) received standardized individual nutritional therapy, including counseling by a dietitian, food fortification, and oral nutritional supplements if required. The second group (n = 28) received standard care. The nutritional intervention lasted 3 mo. Dietary intake (3-d dietary record), nutritional status (body weight), physical functioning (performance status, hand-grip strength) and quality of life (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0) were assessed at baseline and after 6 wk and 3 mo. An additional follow-up assessment was carried out 3 mo post-intervention.ResultsNutritional intervention led to a significantly higher average energy and protein intake in the nutritional therapy group (+379 kcal; 95% confidence interval [CI], 117–642; P = 0.007, respectively; +10.4 g; 95% CI, 2.3–18.5; P = 0.016). However, the increased dietary intake was not associated with improvements in nutritional status, physical functioning, or quality of life.ConclusionsIndividual nutritional counseling significantly and positively influenced energy and protein intake, but did not improve nutritional or physical outcome or quality of life. These results indicate that nutritional therapy alone is of limited efficacy in cancer patients whose nutritional status has already deteriorated.     

吉林省五家中小医院胃肠病住院患者营养风险和营养不足发生率及营养支持状况

目的调查吉林省3个地区5家中小医院胃癌、结直肠癌（病组I）及胃肠溃疡、肠梗阻、克罗恩病（病组1／）两病组住院患者营养风险和营养不足发生率及营养支持状况。方法采用连续抽样方法选取吉林省长春地区、松原地区、白城地区等5家中小医院2010年5月至2013年3月普外科住院患者4330例,排除年龄〈18岁或〉80岁、住院时间不足24h或次日8时前手术、神志不清、拒绝参加本研究、不符合预定诊断的、符合预定诊断且未手术的病例后,筛选出诊断为胃结直肠癌、胃溃疡、肠梗阻、克罗恩病等患者687例,其中病组Ⅰ140例、病组Ⅱ547例,被纳入的患者入院后24h内利用营养风险筛查2002进行营养风险筛查,调查营养不足发生率并记录住院期间营养支持应用情况。结果两病组存在营养风险的患者为167例,营养风险发生率为24．3％;两病组存在营养风险的患者接受营养支持的占73．7％,未接受营养支持的占26．3％;无营养风险的患者为520例,接受营养支持的占8．8％,未接受营养支持的占91．2％。病组Ⅰ患者营养风险发生率占64．3％,病组Ⅱ营养风险发生率占14．1％,两组比较差异具有统计学意义（P=0．000）。687例患者中以体重指数〈18．5kg／m^2计算营养不足发生率为3．2％,而以营养状况评分≥3分计算营养不足发生率为8．3％,两组比较差异具有统计学意义（P=0．000）。结论5家中小医院符合纳人标准的患者营养风险总发生率为24．3％,营养不足的发生率为3．2％-8．3％,低于大医院的营养不足发生率。5家中小医院均应用肠外营养支持,尚未应用肠内营养和肠内肠外联合营养支持。