Prognostic value of different cut-off points of the NRS-2002 tool to identify nutritional risk in critically ill patients: a longitudinal study.

The American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition recommends nutritional risk (NR) screening in critically ill patients with Nutritional Risk Screening - 2002 (NRS-2002) ≥ 3 as NR and ≥ 5 as high NR. The present study evaluated the predictive validity of different NRS-2002 cut-off points in intensive care unit (ICU). A prospective cohort study was conducted with adult patients who were screened using the NRS-2002. Hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital and ICU mortality, and ICU readmission were evaluated as outcomes. Logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic value of NRS-2002, and a receiver operating characteristic curve was constructed to determine the best cut-off point for NRS-2002. 374 patients (61·9 ± 14·3 years, 51·1 % males) were included in the study. Of these, 13·1 % were classified as without NR, 48·9 % and 38·0 % were classified as NR and high NR, respectively. An NRS-2002 score of ≥ 5 was associated with prolonged hospital LOS. The best cut-off point for NRS-2002 was a score ≥ 4, which was associated with prolonged hospital LOS (OR = 2·13; 95 % CI: 1·39, 3·28), ICU readmission (OR = 2·44; 95 % CI: 1·14, 5·22), ICU (HR = 2·91; 95 % CI: 1·47, 5·78) and hospital mortality (HR = 2·01; 95 % CI: 1·24, 3·25), but not with ICU prolonged LOS (P = 0·688). NRS-2002 ≥ 4 presented the most satisfactory predictive validity and should be considered in the ICU setting. Future studies should confirm the cut-off point and its validity in predicting nutrition therapy interaction with outcomes.

Quality appraisal of clinical nutrition practice guidelines for critically ill adult patients: a systematic review using the Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care instrument II (AGREE-II) and AGREE-Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX).

Nutritional therapy should follow evidence-based practice, thus several societies regarding nutrition and critical care have developed specific Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). However, to be regarded as trustworthy, the quality of the CPG for critically ill patients and its recommendations need to be high. This systematic review aimed to appraise the methodology and recommendations of nutrition CPG for critically ill patients. We performed a systematic review (protocol number CRD42020184199) with literature search conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and other four specific databases of guidelines up to October 2021. Two reviewers, independently, assessed titles and abstracts and potentially eligible full-text reports to determine eligibility and subsequently four reviewers appraised the guidelines quality using the Advancing Guideline Development, Reporting and Evaluation in Health Care instrument II (AGREE-II) and AGREE-Recommendation Excellence (AGREE-REX). Ten CPG for nutrition in critically ill patients were identified. Only Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine had a total acceptable quality and were recommended for daily practice according AGREE-II. None of the CPG recommendations had an overall quality score above 70 %, thus being classified as moderate quality according AGREE-REX. The methodological evaluation of the critically ill adult patient CPG revealed significant discrepancies and showed a need for improvement in its development and/or reporting. In addition, recommendations about nutrition care process presented a moderate quality.

A systematic review on the agreement between clinical practice guidelines regarding the steps of the nutrition care process of adult patients who are critically ill.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the nutrition management of adult patients who are critically ill present divergences on recommendations regarding the nutrition care process (NCP), which bring difficulties in their application. We aimed to compare the recommendations from these CPGs and present a synthesis of them for each step of the NCP in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. METHODS: Systematic review of CPGs on nutrition care in ICU, searched in six databases up to January 2022. We have extracted data about CPGs, steps of the NCP, and quality of evidence for each recommendation. We compiled the recommendations from each CPG for each step of the NCP and calculated the relative frequency of agreement between them. RESULTS: Ten CPGs were reviewed, and 9 made recommendations for energy requirement, time to start, and route for nutrition support; however, only 3 presented recommendations on nutrition monitoring. The relative frequency of agreement between the recommendations of the CPGs ranges from 11% to 100%. The highest agreement was for the determination of energy requirements by indirect calorimetry and the provision of high protein for patients who are obese (100%). The lowest agreement among the CPGs was for considering either enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition (PN) as an acceptable route (11%) and when to start PN (16.7%). Most recommendations were based on expert consensus. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide divergence on the recommendations to NCP of patients who are critically ill. This systematic review summarizes recommendations to evidence-based practice in ICU settings to facilitate the daily decisions of professionals.

Nutritional risk in critically ill patients: how it is assessed, its prevalence and prognostic value: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Nutritional risk (NR) screening is the first step of nutrition care process. Few data are available in literature about its prevalence, nor, to our knowledge, is a universally accepted reference method for the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE: The aim for this systematic review was to summarize evidence regarding the prevalence of NR and the predictive validity of different tools applied for NR screening of critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: The PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched up to December 2019 using the subject headings related to critically ill patients and NR screening. The current systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42019129668). DATA EXTRACTION: Data on NR prevalence, predictive validity of nutritional screening tools, and interaction between caloric-protein balance and NR in outcome prediction were collected. DATA ANALYSIS: Results were summarized qualitatively in text and tables, considering the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: From 15 669 articles initially identified, 36 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, providing data from 8 nutritional screening tools: modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (mNUTRIC; n = 26 studies) and Nutritional Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002; n = 7 studies) were the most frequent; the NR prevalence was 55.9% (range, 16.0% to 99.5%). Nutritional risk was a predictor of 28-day and ICU mortality in 8 studies. Interactions between caloric-protein balance and NR on outcome prediction presented were scarcely tested and presented heterogeneous results (n = 8). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of NR in patients in the ICU varies widely; a satisfactory predictive validity was observed, especially when mNUTRIC or NRS-2002 were applied.