Value of handgrip strength to predict clinical outcomes and therapeutic response in malnourished medical inpatients: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Disease-related malnutrition is associated with loss of muscle mass and impaired functional status. Handgrip strength (HGS) has been proposed as an easy-to-use tool to assess muscle strength in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the prognostic implications of HGS in patients at nutritional risk with regard to clinical outcomes and response to nutritional support. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled, multicenter, Effect of Early Nutritional Support on Frailty, Functional Outcome, and Recovery of Malnourished Medical Inpatients Trial, which compared the effects of individualized nutritional support with usual hospital food in medical inpatients at nutritional risk. Our primary endpoint was 30-d all-cause mortality. The association between sex-specific HGS and clinical outcomes was investigated using multivariable regression analyses, adjusted for randomization, age, weight, height, nutritional risk, admission diagnosis, comorbidities, interaction terms, and study center. We used interaction terms to investigate possible effect modification regarding the nutritional support intervention. RESULTS: Mean ± SD HGS in the 1809 patients with available handgrip measurement was 17.0 ± 7.1 kg for females and 28.9 ± 11.3 kg for males. Each decrease of 10 kg in HGS was associated with increased risk of 30-d mortality (female: adjusted OR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.23, 3.62, P = 0.007; male: adjusted OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.93, P = 0.015) and 180-d mortality (female: adjusted OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.0, 2.10, P = 0.048; male: adjusted OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.28, 1.89, P < 0.001). Individualized nutritional support was most effective in reducing mortality in patients with low HGS (adjusted OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.82 in patients in the ≤10th percentile compared with OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.66, 1.48 in patients in the >10th percentile; P for interaction = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: In medical inpatients at nutritional risk, HGS provided significant prognostic information about expected mortality and complication risks and helps to identify which patients benefit most from nutritional support. HGS may thus improve individualization of nutritional therapy.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02517476.

Six-month outcomes after individualized nutritional support during the hospital stay in medical patients at nutritional risk: Secondary analysis of a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Among medical inpatients at risk of malnutrition, the use of individualized nutritional support during the hospital stay was found to reduce complications and improve mortality at short-term. We evaluated clinical outcomes at 6-months follow-up. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2028 patients to receive protocol-guided individualized nutritional support to reach protein and energy goals (intervention group) or hospital food as usual (control group) during the hospital stay. The intervention was discontinued at hospital discharge and further nutritional support was based on the discretion of the treating team. We had complete follow-up information of 1995 patients (98%), which were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 6-months. Prespecified secondary end points included non-elective hospital readmissions, functional outcome and quality of life. RESULTS: At 6-month, 231 of 994 (23.2%) intervention group patients had died compared to 246 of 999 (24.6%) control group patients, resulting in a hazard ratio for death of 0.90 (95%CI 0.76 to 1.08, p = 0.277). Compared to control patients, intervention group patients had similar rates of hospital readmission (27.3% vs. 27.6%, HR 1.00 (95%CI 0.84 to 1.18), p = 0.974), falls (11.2% vs. 10.9%, HR 0.96 (95%CI 0.72 to 1.27), p = 0.773) and similar quality of life and activities of daily living scores. INTERPRETATION: While individualized nutritional support during the hospital stay significantly reduced short-term mortality, there was no legacy effect on longer term outcomes. Future trials should investigate whether continuation of nutritional support after hospital discharge reduces the high malnutrition-associated mortality rates in this vulnerable patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02517476.

Refeeding syndrome is associated with increased mortality in malnourished medical inpatients: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether the occurrence of refeeding syndrome (RFS), a metabolic condition characterized by electrolyte shifts after initiation of nutritional therapy, has a negative impact on clinical outcomes remains ill-defined. We prospectively investigated a subgroup of patients included in a multicentre, nutritional trial (EFFORT) for the occurrence of RFS. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of a randomized-controlled trial investigating the effects of nutritional support in malnourished medical inpatients, we prospectively screened patients for RFS and classified them as "RFS confirmed" and "RFS not confirmed" based on predefined criteria (i.e. electrolyte shifts, clinical symptoms, clinical context, and patient history). We assessed associations of RFS and mortality within 180 days (primary endpoint) and other secondary endpoints using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 967 included patients, RFS was confirmed in 141 (14.6%) patients. Compared to patients with no evidence for RFS, patients with confirmed RFS had significantly increased 180-days mortality rates (42/141 (29.8%) vs 181/826 (21.9%), adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.53 (95% CI 1.02 to 2.29), P < .05). Patients with RFS also had an increased risk for ICU admission (6/141 (4.3%) vs 13/826 (1.6%), adjusted OR 2.71 (95% CI 1.01 to 7.27), P < .05) and longer mean length of hospital stays (10.5 ±â€Š6.9 vs 9.0 ±â€Š6.6 days, adjusted difference 1.57 days (95% CI 0.38-2.75), P = .01). CONCLUSION: A relevant proportion of medical inpatients with malnutrition develop features of RFS upon hospital admission, which is associated with long-term mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to develop preventive strategies for RFS in this patient population.

Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002) is a strong and modifiable predictor risk score for short-term and long-term clinical outcomes: secondary analysis of a prospective randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) identifies patients at risk of malnutrition. We studied the prognostic implications of this score with regard to short-term and long-term clinical outcomes in a well-characterised cohort of medical inpatients from a previous trial. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of an investigator-initiated, prospective randomised controlled multicenter trial in Switzerland (EFFORT) that compared the effects of an individualised nutritional support intervention with standard of care. We investigated associations between admission NRS and several short-term and long-term outcomes using multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 2028 patients, 31% had an NRS of 3, 38% of 4 and 31% of ≥5 points, and 477 (24%) died during the 180 days of follow-up. For each point increase in NRS, we found a stepwise increase in risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48), p = 0.048) and 180-day mortality (adjusted HR 1.37 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.55), p < 0.001). NRS was associated with length of hospital stay (adjusted difference of 0.60 days per NRS point increase, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.97, p = 0.002) and functional outcomes at 180 days (adjusted decrease in Barthel index of -4.49 points per NRS point increase, 95%CI -6.54 to -2.45, p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, associations of NRS and short-term adverse outcomes were less pronounced in patients receiving nutritional support (intervention group) compared to control group patients (adjusted HR for 30-day mortality 1.12 [95%CI 0.83 to 1.52, p = 0.454] vs. 1.33 [95%CI 1.02 to 1.72, p = 0.032]). CONCLUSION: The NRS is a strong and independent risk score for malnutrition-associated mortality and adverse outcomes over 180 days. Our data provide strong evidence that the nutritional risk, however, is modifiable and can be reduced by the provision of adequate nutritional support.

Individualised nutritional support in medical inpatients at nutritional risk: a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend the use of nutritional support during hospital stays for medical patients (patients not critically ill and not undergoing surgical procedures) at risk of malnutrition. However, the supporting evidence for this recommendation is insufficient, and there is growing concern about the possible negative effects of nutritional therapy during acute illness on recovery and clinical outcomes. Our aim was thus to test the hypothesis that protocol-guided individualised nutritional support to reach protein and caloric goals reduces the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in medical inpatients at nutritional risk. METHODS: The Effect of early nutritional support on Frailty, Functional Outcomes, and Recovery of malnourished medical inpatients Trial (EFFORT) is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, multicentre study. We recruited medical patients at nutritional risk (nutritional risk screening 2002 [NRS 2002] score ≥3 points) and with an expected length of hospital stay of more than 4 days from eight Swiss hospitals. These participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either protocol-guided individualised nutritional support to reach protein and caloric goals (intervention group) or standard hospital food (control group). Randomisation was done with variable block sizes and stratification according to study site and severity of malnutrition using an interactive web-response system. In the intervention group, individualised nutritional support goals were defined by specialist dietitians and nutritional support was initiated no later than 48 h after admission. Patients in the control group received no dietary consultation. The composite primary endpoint was any adverse clinical outcome defined as all-cause mortality, admission to intensive care, non-elective hospital readmission, major complications, and decline in functional status at 30 days, and it was measured in all randomised patients who completed the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02517476. FINDINGS: 5015 patients were screened, and 2088 were recruited and monitored between April 1, 2014, and Feb 28, 2018. 1050 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 1038 to the control group. 60 patients withdrew consent during the course of the trial (35 in the intervention group and 25 in the control group). During the hospital stay, caloric goals were reached in 800 (79%) and protein goals in 770 (76%) of 1015 patients in the intervention group. By 30 days, 232 (23%) patients in the intervention group experienced an adverse clinical outcome, compared with 272 (27%) of 1013 patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·64-0·97], p=0·023). By day 30, 73 [7%] patients had died in the intervention group compared with 100 [10%] patients in the control group (adjusted OR 0·65 [0·47-0·91], p=0·011). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who experienced side-effects from nutritional support between the intervention and the control group (162 [16%] vs 145 [14%], adjusted OR 1·16 [0·90-1·51], p=0·26). INTERPRETATION: In medical inpatients at nutritional risk, the use of individualised nutritional support during the hospital stay improved important clinical outcomes, including survival, compared with standard hospital food. These findings strongly support the concept of systematically screening medical inpatients on hospital admission regarding nutritional risk, independent of their medical condition, followed by a nutritional assessment and introduction of individualised nutritional support in patients at risk. FUNDING: The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland.