Nutritional support therapy after GLIM criteria may neglect the benefit of reducing infection complications compared with NRS2002: Reanalysis of a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to validate the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria and determine the number of Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002)-positive patients who do not meet the GLIM, as well as examine whether these patients would benefit from nutritional support therapy. METHODS: A reanalysis of a published prospective observational study was performed. The subjects were rediagnosed per the NRS2002 and GLIM criteria. The prevalence of malnutrition was reported, and the difference in rate of infection complications and total complications between the nutritional support therapy and glucose-electrolyte cohorts was calculated. RESULTS: Among 1831 cases in the original database, 827 cases (45.2%) were NRS2002-positive. A total of 391 cases were identified by the GLIM criteria as malnourished (21.4%) and of these, subjects in the nutritional support therapy cohort had fewer infection complications than those in the glucose-electrolyte cohort (13.0% vs. 23.0%; P = 0.010). The remaining 436 patients were NRS2002 positive but GLIM negative (23.8%). The rate of infection was also significantly lower in the support cohort than in the nonsupport cohort (8.0% vs. 15.7%; P = 0.011). Nutritional support was proven o be a protective factor for infection complications in both GLIM-positive (odds ratio: 0.407; 95% confidence interval, 0.232-0.714; P = 0.002) and NRS2002-positive/GLIM-negative patients [odds ratio: 0.314; 95% confidence interval, 0.161-0.612; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The GLIM criteria have been validated, and are useful in identifying malnourished patients who may have fewer infection complications due to nutritional support therapy. However, the criteria neglected half of the patients identified by NRS2002, among whom nutritional support therapy also decreased the rate of infection complications.

Nutrition risk screening in the ICU.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review recent studies that may help to identify patients in the ICU who benefit from nutrition support. RECENT FINDINGS: One recent controlled trial did not show any clinical benefit of nutrition support among a sample of ICU patients who were hitherto believed to benefit from nutrition support. Several recent observational studies suggest benefit of nutrition support among patients who have a high nutric score, in itself derived from an observational study. SUMMARY: Regrettably, the decision about nutrition support in ICU patients still depends on physiological reasoning: a high degree of inflammation/stress metabolism, which will last for a considerable time, especially among those who are fragile (already malnourished, elderly, those with chronic diseases and/or other comorbidities).

Management and prevention of refeeding syndrome in medical inpatients: An evidence-based and consensus-supported algorithm.

OBJECTIVES: Refeeding syndrome (RFS) can be a life-threatening metabolic condition after nutritional replenishment if not recognized early and treated adequately. There is a lack of evidence-based treatment and monitoring algorithm for daily clinical practice. The aim of the study was to propose an expert consensus guideline for RFS for the medical inpatient (not including anorexic patients) regarding risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and preventive and therapeutic measures based on a previous systematic literature search. METHODS: Based on a recent qualitative systematic review on the topic, we developed clinically relevant recommendations as well as a treatment and monitoring algorithm for the clinical management of inpatients regarding RFS. With international experts, these recommendations were discussed and agreement with the recommendation was rated. RESULTS: Upon hospital admission, we recommend the use of specific screening criteria (i.e., low body mass index, large unintentional weight loss, little or no nutritional intake, history of alcohol or drug abuse) for risk assessment regarding the occurrence of RFS. According to the patient's individual risk for RFS, a careful start of nutritional therapy with a stepwise increase in energy and fluids goals and supplementation of electrolyte and vitamins, as well as close clinical monitoring, is recommended. We also propose criteria for the diagnosis of imminent and manifest RFS with practical treatment recommendations with adoption of the nutritional therapy. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, we developed a practical algorithm for risk assessment, treatment, and monitoring of RFS in medical inpatients. In daily routine clinical care, this may help to optimize and standardize the management of this vulnerable patient population. We encourage future quality studies to further refine these recommendations.

Early goal-directed nutrition versus standard of care in adult intensive care patients: the single-centre, randomised, outcome assessor-blinded EAT-ICU trial.

PURPOSE: We assessed the effects of early goal-directed nutrition (EGDN) vs. standard nutritional care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: We randomised acutely admitted, mechanically ventilated ICU patients expected to stay longer than 3 days in the ICU. In the EGDN group we estimated nutritional requirements by indirect calorimetry and 24-h urinary urea aiming at covering 100% of requirements from the first full trial day using enteral and parenteral nutrition. In the standard of care group we aimed at providing 25 kcal/kg/day by enteral nutrition. If this was not met by day 7, patients were supplemented with parenteral nutrition. The primary outcome was physical component summary (PCS) score of SF-36 at 6 months. We performed multiple imputation for data of the non-responders. RESULTS: We randomised 203 patients and included 199 in the intention-to-treat analyses; baseline variables were reasonably balanced between the two groups. The EGDN group had less negative energy (p < 0.001) and protein (p < 0.001) balances in the ICU as compared to the standard of care group. The PCS score at 6 months did not differ between the two groups (mean difference 0.0, 95% CI -5.9 to 5.8, p = 0.99); neither did mortality, rates of organ failures, serious adverse reactions or infections in the ICU, length of ICU or hospital stay, or days alive without life support at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: EGDN did not appear to affect physical quality of life at 6 months or other important outcomes as compared to standard nutrition care in acutely admitted, mechanically ventilated, adult ICU patients. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier no. NCT01372176.

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

Assessment of adult malnutrition and prognosis with bioelectrical impedance analysis: phase angle and impedance ratio.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Malnutrition affects prognosis in many groups of patients. Although screening tools are available to identify adults at risk for poor nutritional status, a need exists to improve the assessment of malnutrition by identifying the loss of functional tissues that can lead to frailty, compromised physical function, and increased risk of morbidity and mortality, particularly among hospitalized and ill patients and older adults. Bioimpedance analysis (BIA) offers a practical approach to identify malnutrition and prognosis by assessing whole-body cell membrane quality and depicting fluid distribution for an individual. RECENT FINDINGS: Two novel applications of BIA afford opportunities to safely, rapidly, and noninvasively assess nutritional status and prognosis. One method utilizes single-frequency phase-sensitive measurements to determine phase angle, evaluate nutritional status, and relate it to prognosis, mortality, and functional outcomes. Another approach uses the ratio of multifrequency impedance values to indicate altered fluid distribution and predict prognosis. SUMMARY: Use of basic BIA measurements, independent of use of regression prediction models and assumptions of constant chemical composition of the fat-free body, enables new options for practical assessment and clinical evaluation of impaired nutritional status and prognosis among hospitalized patients and elders that potentially can contribute to improved patient care and clinical outcomes. However, these novel applications have some technical and physiological limitations that should be considered.

Impact of nutrition support on clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analysis in patients at nutritional risk: A prospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of evidence regarding the economic effects of nutrition support in patients at nutritional risk. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis by comparing an adequate nutrition support cohort with a no-support cohort. METHOD: A prospective observational study was performed in the surgical and medical gastroenterology wards. We identified patients at nutritional risk and the provision of nutrition support by the staff, unaware of the risk status, was recorded. Cost data were obtained from each patient's statement of accounts, and effectiveness was measured by the rate of infectious complication. To control for potential confounding variables, the propensity score method with matching was carried out. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated based on the matched population. RESULTS: We screened 3791 patients, and 440 were recruited for the analysis. Patients in the nutrition support cohort had a lower incidence of infectious complications than those in the no-support cohort (9.1 versus 18.1%; P = 0.007). This result was similar in the 149 propensity matched pairs (9.4 versus 24.2%; P < 0.001). The median hospital length of stay was significantly reduced among the matched nutrition support patients (13 versus 15 d; P < 0.001). The total costs were similar among the matched pairs (US $6219 versus $6161). The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that nutrition support cost US $392 per patient prevented from having infectious complications. CONCLUSION: Nutrition support was associated with fewer infectious complications and shorter length of stay in patients at nutritional risk. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that nutrition support had not increased costs significantly.

Revisiting the refeeding syndrome: Results of a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Although described >70 y ago, the refeeding syndrome (RFS) remains understudied with lack of standardized definition and treatment recommendations. The aim of this systematic review was to gather evidence regarding standardized definition, incidence rate and time course of occurrence, association with adverse clinical outcomes, risk factors, and therapeutic strategies to prevent or treat this condition. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for interventional and observational clinical trials focusing on RFS, excluding case reports and reviews. We extracted data based on a predefined case report form and assessed bias. RESULTS: Of 2207 potential abstracts, 45 records with a total of 6608 patients were included (3 interventional trials, 16 studies focusing on anorexic patients). Definitions for RFS were highly heterogenous with most studies relying on blood electrolyte disturbances only and others also including clinical symptoms. Incidence rates varied between 0% and 80%, depending on the definition and patient population studied. Occurrence was mostly within the first 72 h of start of nutritional therapy. Most of the risk factors were in accordance with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, with older age and enteral feeding being additional factors. There was no strong evidence regarding association of RFS and adverse outcomes, as well as regarding preventive measures and treatment algorithms. CONCLUSION: This systematic review focusing on RFS found consensus regarding risk factors and timing of occurrence, but wide variations regarding definition, reported incidence rates, preventive measures and treatment recommendations. Further research to fill this gap is urgently needed.

Indirect Calorimetry in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Clinical Validation of 2 Devices Against a Gold Standard.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The 2 currently available indirect calorimeters, CCM Express Indirect Calorimeter (MedGraphics, St Paul, MN) and Quark RMR ICU Indirect Calorimeter (COSMED, Rome, Italy), have not been validated against a gold standard in mechanically ventilated patients. Our aim was to do so using a gold-standard, modified Tissot bell-spirometer method in mechanically ventilated patients who were hemodynamically, respiratory, and metabolically stable. METHODS: We studied 30 patients undergoing general anesthesia and major gynecological surgery. We measured oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]O2) and resting energy expenditure (REE) in a randomized, sequential, crossover design with double determination of each device. RESULTS: Compared with the modified Tissot bell-spirometer, the CCM Express Indirect Calorimeter demonstrated a mean Δ-REE of +361 kcal/d, corresponding to a 31% overestimation of energy requirements. Bland-Altman analysis for REE showed a mean (SD) bias of 384 (124) with limits of agreement 142-627 kcal/d. QUARK RMR ICU demonstrated a mean Δ-REE of 81 kcal/d, corresponding to a 7% overestimation of energy requirements. Bland-Altman plot analysis showed a mean (SD) bias of 77 (167) with limits of agreement -249 to 404 kcal/d. CONCLUSIONS: The QUARK RMR ICU Indirect Calorimeter compared better with the gold standard for values of [Formula: see text]O2 and REE than did the CCM Express Indirect Calorimeter in mechanically ventilated patients who were circulatory and respiratory stable. Both indirect calorimeters had low precision.

Early goal-directed nutrition in ICU patients (EAT-ICU): protocol for a randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Extensive weight loss has been docu-mented in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors, primarily as the result of muscle loss, leading to impaired physical function and reduced quality of life. The aim of the EAT-ICU trial is to test the effect of early goal-directed protein-energy nutrition based on measured requirements on short-term clinical outcomes and long-term physical quality of life in ICU patients. METHODS: The EAT-ICU trial is a single-centre, randomised, parallel-group trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessment. A total of 200 consecutive, acutely admitted, mechanically ventilated intensive care patients will be randomised 1:1 to early goal-directed nutrition versus standard of care to show a potential 15% relative risk reduction in the primary outcome measure (physical function) at six months (two-sided significance level α = 0.05; power ß = 80%). Secondary outcomes include energy- and protein balances, metabolic control, new organ failure, use of life support, nosocomial infections, ICU- and hospital length of stay, mortality and cost analyses. CONCLUSION: The optimal nutrition strategy for ICU patients remains unsettled. The EAT-ICU trial will provide important data on the effects of early goal-directed protein-energy nutrition based on measured requirements in these patients. FUNDING: The EAT-ICU trial is funded by Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet and Fresenius Kabi A/S and supported by The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier no. NCT01372176.

Detection and treatment of medical inpatients with or at-risk of malnutrition: Suggested procedures based on validated guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the high prevalence of malnutrition in the general inpatient population, there is a lack of knowledge in regard to detecting disease-related malnutrition and implementing nutritional support. Our aim was to suggest practical procedures for screening and treating malnourished or at-risk patients hospitalized in medical wards, thereby fostering a straightforward implementation of nutritional therapy independent of the underlying disease and comorbidities. METHODS: A working group of experts in clinical nutrition selected and analyzed published disease-specific European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guidelines relevant for our aim. Eight questions in population, intervention, control, outcome format were defined to cover topics such as screening, nutritional targets, and routes of feeding. Individual studies were extracted from the guidelines by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria targeting the heterogeneous population of medical inpatients with or at-risk of disease-related malnutrition. We used those studies as evidence, as well as recommendations from the selected ESPEN guidelines, to formulate answers to the questions. Final agreement with the statement was obtained by consensus of the whole working group. RESULTS: Procedures on how to provide integrated nutritional therapy (oral, enteral, and parenteral) to a heterogeneous patient population were suggested, including how to identify malnourished or at-risk patients, nutrient targets, choice of feeding route, monitoring, and assessment of patients. We also developed a simple algorithm to facilitate the implementation of a nutritional care plan for the general medical inpatient population. CONCLUSION: By compiling evidence and recommendations from disease-specific guidelines, we were able to suggest a nutritional strategy applicable to large and heterogeneous group of malnourished or at-risk patients admitted to hospitals. A large randomized controlled trial is currently investigating whether this strategy improves clinical outcomes of patients.

Nutritional-risk scoring systems in the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is a need to develop a screening tool to assist clinical staff in deciding whether or not a patient in the ICU should be given nutrition support. The purpose of this review is to analyze the recent randomized trials in this context. RECENT FINDINGS: Five trials describe the effect of early supplemental parenteral nutrition. Four of these trials suggested a positive effect on clinical outcome. The results, including lengths of stay in the ICU (range on average: 3-17 days) and lengths of mechanical ventilation (range on average: 2-11 days), are discussed within the nutritional and metabolic framework of patients in intensive care. The limitations of existing screening tools, Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) and Nutrition risk in the critically ill (NUTRIC score) are described, and it also appears that the APACHE II score is not useful for predicting a possible benefit of nutrition support. SUMMARY: As a tentative conclusion, it is recommended to provide adequate nutrition support to severely ill patients who are likely to stay in the ICU with mechanical ventilation for a week or more.

Pragmatic approach to nutrition in the ICU: expert opinion regarding which calorie protein target.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Since the publications of the ESPEN guidelines on enteral and parenteral nutrition in ICU, numerous studies have added information to assist the nutritional management of critically ill patients regarding the recognition of the right population to feed, the energy-protein targeting, the route and the timing to start. METHODS: We reviewed and discussed the literature related to nutrition in the ICU from 2006 until October 2013. RESULTS: To identify safe, minimal and maximal amounts for the different nutrients and at the different stages of the acute illness is necessary. These amounts might be specific for different phases in the time course of the patient's illness. The best approach is to target the energy goal defined by indirect calorimetry. High protein intake (1.5 g/kg/d) is recommended during the early phase of the ICU stay, regardless of the simultaneous calorie intake. This recommendation can reduce catabolism. Later on, high protein intake remains recommended, likely combined with a sufficient amount of energy to avoid proteolysis. CONCLUSIONS: Pragmatic recommendations are proposed to practically optimize nutritional therapy based on recent publications. However, on some issues, there is insufficient evidence to make expert recommendations.

Nutritional intake and status in persons with alcohol dependency: data from an outpatient treatment programme.

PURPOSE: Malnutrition increases the risk of developing alcohol-related complications. The aim of this study was to describe nutrient intake, nutritional status and nutrition-related complications in a Danish population of outpatients with alcohol dependency. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study with a 6-month follow-up enrolling persons with alcohol dependency (n = 80) admitted to a hospital-based outpatient clinic. Body mass index, the waist-to-hip ratio and handgrip strength (HGS) were measured, a 7-day food diary was collected, and biochemical testing was conducted. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was performed to determine body composition and bone mineral density (BMD). RESULTS: In total, 64% of the patients with alcohol dependency had vitamin D insufficiency (25-OH-vit D <50 nmol/l). Compared with surveys of the general population, the patients with alcohol dependency had lower energy intake (p = 0.008), s-zinc levels (p < 0.001), s-magnesium levels (p = 0.02), Z-scores for BMD (lumbar spine, p = 0.03; total hip, p = 0.009) and HGS (p < 0.001). Osteopenia was observed in 52% of individuals, and overt osteoporosis was noted in 7%. Comparing baseline data with data from the follow-up (n = 30), we found a decrease in s-CRP (p = 0.002) and s-alanine amino transferase (p = 0.01) levels and an increase in s-parathyroid hormone levels (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with alcohol dependency have an altered nutritional status and risk of complications, as evidenced by osteopenia/osteoporosis and reduced muscle strength. Treatment at an outpatient clinic improved the variables related to liver function, but no change was observed in nutritional status over time. These findings suggest that specific screening and targeted treatment regimens for nutritional deficits could be beneficial.

Health effects of protein intake in healthy adults: a systematic literature review.

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the evidence behind the dietary requirement of protein and to assess the health effects of varying protein intake in healthy adults. The literature search covered the years 2000-2011. Prospective cohort, case-control, and intervention studies were included. Out of a total of 5,718 abstracts, 412 full papers were identified as potentially relevant, and after careful scrutiny, 64 papers were quality graded as A (highest), B, or C. The grade of evidence was classified as convincing, probable, suggestive or inconclusive. The evidence is assessed as: probable for an estimated average requirement of 0.66 g good-quality protein/kg body weight (BW)/day based on nitrogen balance studies, suggestive for a relationship between increased all-cause mortality risk and long-term low-carbohydrate-high-protein (LCHP) diets; but inconclusive for a relationship between all-cause mortality risk and protein intake per se; suggestive for an inverse relationship between cardiovascular mortality and vegetable protein intake; inconclusive for relationships between cancer mortality and cancer diseases, respectively, and protein intake; inconclusive for a relationship between cardiovascular diseases and total protein intake; suggestive for an inverse relationship between blood pressure (BP) and vegetable protein; probable to convincing for an inverse relationship between soya protein intake and LDL cholesterol; inconclusive for a relationship between protein intake and bone health, energy intake, BW control, body composition, renal function, and risk of kidney stones, respectively; suggestive for a relationship between increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and long-term LCHP-high-fat diets; inconclusive for impact of physical training on protein requirement; and suggestive for effect of physical training on whole-body protein retention. In conclusion, the evidence is assessed as probable regarding the estimated requirement based on nitrogen balance studies, and suggestive to inconclusive for protein intake and mortality and morbidity. Vegetable protein intake was associated with decreased risk in many studies. Potentially adverse effects of a protein intake exceeding 20-23 E% remain to be investigated.

Impact of nutrition support on clinical outcomes for the patients with gastrointestinal disease at nutritional risk by Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 tool and the preliminary finding of cost-effectiveness analysis: a prospective cohort study for 275 patien / 中华临床营养杂志

Objective To evaluate the impact of nutrition support on the clinical outcomes of gastrointestinal disease patients at nutritional risk and explore the the cost-effectiveness of various nutrition support options.Methods A prospective cohort study was designed.The patients who met the predetermined inclusion criteria were followed up during the hospital stay.Nutritional risk was determined using the Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 on admission.The information with respect to nutritional support,occurrence and treatment of complications,length of hospital stay,and discharge destination was monitored and recorded.The direct costs of nutritional support and the costs of diagnosing and treating complications were calculated after discharge.Infectious complication-free patient was used as the effectiveness indicator in the cost-effectiveness analysis.Results Patients who had received nutrition support had significantly lower infectious complications incidence (6.8％ vs.19.6％,x2 =9.0,P=0.003) and significantly higher total hospitalization costs (P =0.0001).The adjusted (by general linear model) cost of parenteral nutrition (PN) cohort,enteral nutrition (EN) cohort,PN combined EN cohort,and the cohort without nutritional support were 5635,1212,5220,and 1339 China Yuan,respectively.The incremental cost effectiveness ratios were 36 101,-794,and 33 748 China Yuan for PN,EN,and PN-EN combination groups,respectively.Conclusions For the patients at nutritional risk,nutritional support can remarkably reduce the incidence of infectious complications.The preliminary resuits of cost-effectiveness:due to lack of enough data required by health economic professional,it can not be cited directly.

Impact of preoperative nutritional support on clinical outcome in abdominal surgical patients at nutritional risk.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, prospective cohort study evaluated the effect of preoperative nutritional support in abdominal surgical patients at nutritional risk as defined by the Nutritional Risk Screening Tool 2002 (NRS-2002). METHODS: A consecutive series of patients admitted for selective abdominal surgery in the Peking Union Medical College Hospital and the Beijing University Third Hospital in Beijing, China were recruited from March 2007 to July 2008. Data were collected on the nutritional risk screening (NRS-2002), the application of perioperative nutritional support, surgery, complications, and length of stay. A minimum of 7 d of parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition before surgery was considered adequate preoperative nutritional support. RESULTS: In total 1085 patients were recruited, and 512 of them were at nutritional risk. Of the 120 patients with an NRS score at least 5, the complication rate was significantly lower in the preoperative nutrition group compared with the control group (25.6% versus 50.6%, P = 0.008). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the preoperative nutrition group than in the control group (13.7 ± 7.9 versus 17.9 ± 11.3 d, P = 0.018). Of the 392 patients with an NRS score from 3 to 4, the complication rate and the postoperative hospital stay were similar between patients with and those without preoperative nutritional support (P = 1.0 and 0.770, respectively). CONCLUSION: This finding suggests that preoperative nutritional support is beneficial to patients with an NRS score at least 5 by lowering the complication rate.

Food for patients at nutritional risk: a model of food sensory quality to promote intake.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim was to investigate food sensory quality as experienced and perceived by patients at nutritional risk within the context of establishing a framework to develop foods to develop foods to promote intake. METHODS: Patients at nutritional risk (NRS-2002; food intake ≤ 75% of requirements) were observed at meals in hospital (food choice, hunger/fullness/appetite scores). This was followed by a semi-structured interview based on the observations and focusing on food sensory perception and eating ability as related to food quality. Two weeks post-discharge, a 3-day food record was taken and interviews were repeated by phone. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Patients (N = 22) from departments of gastrointestinal surgery, oncology, infectious medicine, cardiology, and hepatology were interviewed at meals (N = 65) in hospital (82%) and post-discharge (18%). Food sensory perception and eating ability dictated specific food sensory needs (i.e., appearance, aroma, taste, texture, temperature, and variety defining food sensory quality to promote intake) within the context of motivation to eat including: pleasure, comfort, and survival. Patients exhibited large inter- and intra-individual variability in their food sensory needs. CONCLUSIONS: The study generated a model for optimising food sensory quality and developing user-driven, innovative foods to promote intake in patients at nutritional risk.