Feasibility of Accessing Data in Hospitalized Patients to Support Diagnosis of Malnutrition by the Academy‐A.S.P.E.N. Malnutrition Consensus Recommended Clinical Characteristics

Background: The feasibility of accessing data in hospitalized patients to support a malnutrition diagnosis using the new Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics–American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (AND‐A.S.P.E.N.) consensus recommended clinical characteristics of malnutrition is largely unknown. We sought to characterize baseline practice to guide the development of appropriate interventions for implementation of the recommended approach. Materials and Methods: A cross‐sectional survey was conducted of 262 consecutive adults who were referred for dietitian or nutrition support team assessments at 2 tertiary teaching hospitals in Pennsylvania. The availability of data to support the proposed AND‐A.S.P.E.N. approach and the resulting malnutrition diagnoses were examined. Results: Mean ± SD age was 58.2 ± 17.1 years, and half were female. Food intake history was available for 76%, weight history for 67%, and physical examination for loss of fat and muscle mass for 94% and for edema for 84%. Hand‐grip strength was not available. The prevalence of malnutrition among the patients referred for nutrition assessment was 6.7% moderate, 7.6% severe with acute illness; 12.2% moderate, 11% severe with chronic illness; and 0.8% moderate, 0.4% severe with social circumstances. Decline in typical food intake and weight loss were the most commonly used clinical characteristics. Conclusion: Data could generally be accessed to support the AND‐A.S.P.E.N. consensus clinical characteristics for malnutrition diagnosis, but further testing in multiple care settings is needed before these observations may be generalized. Training in assessment methods and dissemination of the necessary tools will be necessary for full implementation.     

Malnutrition Diagnoses in Hospitalized Patients

Malnutrition is common among hospitalized patients in the United States, and its coded prevalence is increasing. Malnutrition is known to be associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Although national data indicate that the number of malnutrition diagnoses among hospital discharges has been steadily rising, an in‐depth examination of the demographic and clinical characteristics of these patients has not been conducted. We examined data from the 2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), the most recent nationally‐representative data describing U.S. hospital discharges. Using ICD‐9 codes, we constructed a composite variable indicating a diagnosis of malnutrition. Based on our definition, 3.2% of all U.S. hospital discharges in 2010 had this diagnosis. Relative to patients without a malnutrition diagnosis, those with the diagnosis were older, had longer lengths of stay and incurred higher costs. These patients were more likely to have 27 of 29 comorbidities assessed in HCUP. Finally, discharge to home care was twice as common among malnourished patients, and a discharge of death was more than 5 times as common among patients with a malnutrition diagnosis. Taken together, these nationally representative, cross‐sectional data indicate that hospitalized patients discharged with a diagnosis of malnutrition are older and sicker and their inpatient care is more expensive than their counterparts without this diagnosis.     

A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines

Background: Children with severe intestinal failure and prolonged dependence on parenteral nutrition are susceptible to the development of parenteral nutrition–associated liver disease (PNALD). The purpose of this clinical guideline is to develop recommendations for the care of children with PN‐dependent intestinal failure that have the potential to prevent PNALD or improve its treatment. Method: A systematic review of the best available evidence to answer a series of questions regarding clinical management of children with intestinal failure receiving parenteral or enteral nutrition was undertaken and evaluated using concepts adopted from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. A consensus process was used to develop the clinical guideline recommendations prior to external and internal review and approval by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Board of Directors. Questions: (1) Is ethanol lock effective in preventing bloodstream infection and catheter removal in children at risk of PNALD? (2) What fat emulsion strategies can be used in pediatric patients with intestinal failure to reduce the risk of or treat PNALD? (3) Can enteral ursodeoxycholic acid improve the treatment of PNALD in pediatric patients with intestinal failure? (4) Are PNALD outcomes improved when patients are managed by a multidisciplinary intestinal rehabilitation team?     

Use of Temporary Enteral Access Devices in Hospitalized Neonatal and Pediatric Patients in the United States

Background: Temporary enteral access devices (EADs), such as nasogastric (NG), orogastric (OG), and postpyloric (PP), are used in pediatric and neonatal patients to administer nutrition, fluids, and medications. While the use of these temporary EADs is common in pediatric care, it is not known how often these devices are used, what inpatient locations have the highest usage, what size tube is used for a given weight or age of patient, and how placement is verified per hospital policy. Materials and Methods: This was a multicenter 1‐day prevalence study. Participating hospitals counted the number of NG, OG, and PP tubes present in their pediatric and neonatal inpatient population. Additional data collected included age, weight and location of the patient, type of hospital, census for that day, and the method(s) used to verify initial tube placement. Results: Of the 63 participating hospitals, there was an overall prevalence of 1991 temporary EADs in a total pediatric and neonatal inpatient census of 8333 children (24% prevalence). There were 1316 NG (66%), 414 were OG (21%), and 261 PP (17%) EADs. The neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) had the highest prevalence (61%), followed by a medical/surgical unit (21%) and pediatric intensive care unit (18%). Verification of EAD placement was reported to be aspiration from the tube (n = 21), auscultation (n = 18), measurement (n = 8), pH (n = 10), and X‐ray (n = 6). Conclusion: The use of temporary EADs is common in pediatric care. There is wide variation in how placement of these tubes is verified.     

Combining 2 Commonly Adopted Nutrition Instruments in the Critical Care Setting Is Superior to Administering Either One Alone

Background: This study aimed to determine the agreement between the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically ill Score (mNUTRIC) and the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and compare their ability in discriminating and quantifying mortality risk independently and in combination. Methods: Between August 2015 and October 2016, all patients in a Singaporean hospital received the SGA within 48 hours of intensive care unit admission. Nutrition status was dichotomized into presence or absence of malnutrition. The mNUTRIC of patients was retrospectively calculated at the end of the study, and high mNUTRIC was defined as scores ≥5. Results: There were 439 patients and 67.9% had high mNUTRIC, whereas only 28% were malnourished. Hospital mortality was 29.6%, and none was lost to follow‐up. Although both tools had poor agreement (κ statistics: 0.13, P < .001), they had similar discriminative value for hospital mortality (C‐statistics [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.66 [0.62–0.70] for high mNUTRIC and 0.61 [0.56–0.66] for malnutrition, P = .12). However, a high mNUTRIC was associated with higher adjusted odds for hospital mortality compared with malnutrition (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 5.32 [2.15–13.17], P < .001, and 4.27 [1.03–17.71], P = .046, respectively). Combination of both tools showed malnutrition and high mNUTRIC were associated with the highest adjusted odds for hospital mortality (14.43 [5.38–38.78], P < .001). Conclusion: The mNUTRIC and SGA had poor agreement. Although they individually provided a fair discriminative value for hospital mortality, the combination of these approaches is a better discriminator to quantify mortality risk.     

Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients Associated With the Use of Complex vs Weight‐Only Predictive Energy Equations

Background: The energy intake goal is important to achieving energy intake in critically ill patients, yet clinical outcomes associated with energy goals have not been reported. Methods: This secondary analysis used the Improving Nutrition Practices in the Critically III International Nutrition Surveys database from 2007–2009 to evaluate whether mortality or time to discharge alive is related to use of complex energy prediction equations vs weight only. The sample size was 5672 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) ≥4 days and a subset of 3356 in the ICU ≥12 days. Mortality and time to discharge alive were compared between groups by regression, controlling for age, sex, admission type, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, ICU geographic region, actual energy intake, and obesity. Results: There was no difference in mortality between the use of complex and weight‐only equations (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–1.15), but obesity (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.96) and higher energy intake (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56–0.76) had lower odds of mortality. Time to discharge alive was shorter in patients fed using weight‐only equations (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01–1.23) in patients staying ≥4 days and with greater energy intake (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06–1.34) in patients in the ICU ≥12 days. Conclusion: These data suggest that higher energy intake is important to survival and time to discharge alive. However, the analysis was limited by actual energy intake <70% of goal. Delivery of full goal intake will be needed to determine the relationship between the method of determining energy goal and clinical outcomes.