Complementarity of nutrition screening with Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria for diagnosing malnutrition in critically ill patients: A comparison study of Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill Score.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Critical illness induces hypermetabolism and hypercatabolism, increasing nutrition risk (NR). Early NR identification is crucial for improving outcomes. We assessed four nutrition screening tools (NSTs) complementarity with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria in critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative study using data from a cohort involving five intensive care units (ICUs), screening patients for NR using NRS-2002 and modified-NUTRIC tools, with three cutoffs (≥3, ≥4, ≥5), and malnutrition diagnosed by GLIM criteria. Our outcomes of interest included ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and ICU readmission. We examined accuracy metrics and complementarity between NSTs and GLIM criteria about clinical outcomes through logistic regression and Cox regression. We established a four-category independent variable: NR(-)/GLIM(-) as the reference, NR(-)/GLIM(+), NR(+)/GLIM(-), and NR(+)/GLIM(+). RESULTS: Of the 377 patients analyzed (median age 64 years [interquartile range: 54-71] and 53.8% male), NR prevalence varied from 87% to 40.6%, whereas 64% presented malnutrition (GLIM criteria). NRS-2002 (score ≥4) showed superior accuracy for GLIM-based malnutrition. Multivariate analysis revealed mNUTRIC(+)/GLIM(+) increased >2 times in the likelihood of ICU and in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, and ICU readmission compared with the reference group. CONCLUSION: No NST exhibited satisfactory complementarity to the GLIM criteria in our study, emphasizing the necessity for comprehensive nutrition assessment for all patients, irrespective of NR status. We recommend using mNUTRIC if the ICU team opts for nutrition screening, as it demonstrated superior prognostic value compared with NRS-2002, and applying GLIM criteria in all patients.

Ultrasound for measurement of skeletal muscle mass quantity and muscle composition/architecture in critically ill patients: A scoping review on studies' aims, methods, and findings.

AIMS: This scoping review aimed to identify, explore, and map the objectives, methodological aspects, and results of studies that used ultrasound (US) to assess skeletal muscle (SM) in critically ill patients. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. All studies that evaluated SM parameters from the US in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were considered eligible. We categorized muscle thickness and cross-sectional area as parameters for assessing SM quantity, while echogenicity, fascicle length, and pennation angle analysis were used to evaluate muscle "quality" (composition/architecture). A literature search was conducted using four databases for articles published until December 2022. Independent reviewers selected the studies and extracted data. Descriptive statistics were calculated to present the results. RESULTS: A total of 107 studies were included, the majority of which were prospective cohort studies (59.8 %) conducted in general ICUs (49.5 %). The most frequent objective of the studies was to evaluate SM quantity depletion during the ICU stay (25.2 %), followed by determining whether a specific intervention would modify SM (21.5 %). Most studies performed serial SM evaluations (76.1 %). The rectus femoris muscle thickness was evaluated in most studies (67.9 %), followed by the rectus femoris cross-sectional area (54.3 %) and the vastus intermedius muscle thickness (40.2 %). The studies demonstrated the feasibility and reproducibility of US for SM evaluation, especially related to quantitative parameters. Most studies (70.3 %) reported significant SM quantity depletion during hospitalization. However, the accuracy of the US in measuring SM varied across the studies. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of detailed description and standardization in the protocols adopted by the studies included in this scoping review precludes the translation of the evidence related to US for SM assessment into clinical practice.