Acceptance of different types of thickeners, with and without flavoring, in hospitalized patients with dysphagia - A pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Introduction: the goal of this work was to evaluate the acceptance of various types of thickeners, specifically modified starch thickener and gum thickener, both with and without flavoring. Patients and methods: a randomized sample of 40 hospitalized patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia was recruited. The taste, smell, and appearance of each type of thickener were evaluated, as well as the volume of liquid ingested by the patients taking each type of thickener (modified starch thickener vs. gum thickener, both with and without flavoring). Results: the overall acceptance of gum thickener was significantly higher than that of modified starch thickener (7.45 (1.57) vs. 5.10 (2.43), respectively; p = 0.001). When a food flavor was added to the thickened water, the overall rating of the product was higher than when no flavor was added (7.70 (1.53) vs. 4.85 (2.16); p < 0.001). The difference between the daily volume of water consumed by the patients who received gum thickeners (928.33 (331.27) mL) and those who received starch thickeners (670.00 (288.35) mL) was statistically significant (p = 0.012). Patient consumption was also higher when flavoring was added as compared to when it was not (943.33 (302.45) mL) vs. (655.00 (304.60) mL; p = 0.005). Conclusion: the acceptances of the thickener and of water intake by patients with dysphagia were both significantly higher when using gum thickeners compared to starch thickeners, and when adding flavoring.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Introducción: el objetivo de este trabajo fue evaluar la aceptación de varios tipos de espesantes (almidón modificado frente a gomas) con y sin saborizante. Pacientes y métodos: se reclutaron 40 pacientes hospitalizados con disfagia orofaríngea. Se evaluaron el sabor, el olor y la apariencia de cada tipo de espesante, así como el volumen de líquido ingerido por los pacientes que tomaban cada tipo de espesante (espesante de almidón modificado vs. espesante de goma, ambos con o sin saborizante). Resultados: la aceptación general del espesante de goma fue significativamente mayor que la del almidón modificado (7,45 (1,57) vs. 5,10 (2,43); p = 0,001). Cuando se añadió un saborizante al agua espesada, la calificación general fue mejor (7,70 (1,53) frente a 4,85 (2,16); p < 0,001). La diferencia entre el volumen diario de agua consumida por los pacientes que recibieron espesantes de goma (928,33 (331,27) ml) y los que recibieron espesantes de almidón (670,00 (288,35) ml) fue estadísticamente significativa (p = 0,012). El consumo de líquido también fue mayor cuando se agregó el saborizante (943,33 (302,45) ml frente a 655,00 (304,60) ml; p = 0,005). Conclusión: la aceptación del espesante y la ingesta de agua por parte de los pacientes con disfagia fueron significativamente mayores cuando se utilizaron espesantes de goma, en comparación con los espesantes de almidón, y al agregar saborizantes.

Comparison of MUST and Nutriscore for the Screening of Malnutrition in Hospitalized Oncology Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Nutriscore is a malnutrition screening tool designed specifically for cancer patients. Our objective was to assess its performance in hospitalized cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with any solid neoplasm hospitalized in Medical Oncology were included. In the first 24-48 h, of admission they were screened with Nutriscore and Malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST). Both tests were compared using chi-square, kappa index and ROC curve. Nutriscore sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp) and predictive values (PV) were calculated using MUST as a reference. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were included. The most frequent tumors were lung (36.6%), colorectal (24.8%) and breast (8.6%). MUST identified 69.9% of the patients at nutritional risk, and Nutriscore 44.1% (p < 0.001), with a low kappa index [k = 0.38 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.54)]. The AUC of the ROC curve for Nutriscore with respect to the MUST was 0.739. Nutriscore showed S = 58.6 (95% CI 45.7 to 71.2), Sp = 89.3% (95% CI 76.0 to 100.0%), VP + = 92.7% (95% CI 83.5 at 100.0%) and VP- = 48.1% (95% CI 33.5 to 62.6). CONCLUSIONS: Nutriscore did not provided better screening results in hospitalized cancer patients than a validated tool such as MUST.

Utility of the EAT-10 in the detection of dysphagia in high-risk hospitalisation units at a university hospital: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Introduction: the objective was to assess the utility of the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) in hospitalisation units with patients at high risk of dysphagia. Patients and methods: a cross-sectional study was conducted in the Neurology and Internal Medicine wards; patients with admission < 24 hours and in a terminal stage of disease were excluded. In the first 24-48 hours of admission the presence of dysphagia as assessed with the EAT-10, the risk of malnutrition as assessed with the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tools (MUST), and comorbidities using the Charlson index were screened. Results: a total of 169 patients were recruited (76.0 years, 52 % women); 19.5 % were at risk of malnutrition. The EAT-10 instrument could be administered in 80.6 % of the patients, and was positive in 26.6 % (women 34.1 % vs. men 18.4 %; p = 0.025). When comparing patients with higher comorbidity with those with a lower Charlson index, a lower response rate to EAT-10 was observed (78.4 % vs. 93.9 %; p = 0.038), without differences in screening positivity (28.3 % vs. 19.4 %; p = 0.310). The prevalence of dysphagia risk was higher in the Internal Medicine unit than in the Neurology unit (30.4 % vs. 19.6 %; p = 0.133), as was the percentage of cases in which screening could not be performed (21.1 % vs. 11.1 %; p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in risk of malnutrition, mortality, hospital stay, or readmission according to the EAT-10. Conclusions: The EAT-10 has limited utility in the studied hospitalisation units due to a high rate of unfeasible tests, especially among patients at higher risk of dysphagia.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Introducción: el objetivo del estudio fue evaluar la utilidad del Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) en unidades de hospitalización con pacientes de alto riesgo de disfagia. Pacientes y métodos: estudio transversal de pacientes hospitalizados en Medicina Interna y Neurología; los pacientes con ingreso < 24 horas y en fase terminal de la enfermedad fueron excluidos. En las primeras 24-48 horas de ingreso se cribó la disfagia con el EAT-10, el riesgo de desnutrición con el Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) y la comorbilidad con el índice de Charlson. Resultados: se reclutaron 196 pacientes (76,0 años, 52 % mujeres). El 19,5 % estaban en riesgo de desnutrición. El EAT-10 se pudo realizar en el 80,6 % de la muestra y fue positivo en el 26,6 % (mujeres 34,1 % vs. hombres 18,4 %; p = 0,025). Al comparar a los pacientes con mayor comorbilidad con aquellos que tenían un índice de Charlson más bajo, se observó una tasa de respuesta más baja al EAT-10 (78,4 % vs. 93,9 %; p = 0,038), sin diferencias en la positividad del cribado (28,3 % vs. 19,4 %; p = 0,310). La prevalencia del riesgo de disfagia fue mayor en la unidad de Medicina Interna que en la de Neurología (30,4 % vs. 19,6 %; p = 0,133), así como el número de casos en que no se pudo realizar el cribado (21,1 % vs. 11,1 %; p = 0,011). No hubo diferencias significativas en el riesgo de desnutrición, mortalidad, estancia hospitalaria o reingreso según el EAT-10. Conclusiones: el EAT-10 tiene una utilidad limitada en las unidades de hospitalización estudiadas debido a una alta tasa de pruebas no realizables, especialmente entre los pacientes con mayor riesgo de disfagia.