Análise comparativa de classificação do risco nutricional entre a Mini Avaliação Nutricional Reduzida e a NutritionalRisk Screening 2002 em pacientes hospitalizados com insuficiência cardíaca / Comparative analysis of nutritional risk classification between the MiniNutritional Assessment-Short Form and the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002in hospitalized patients with heart failure

Introdução: A triagem nutricional é responsável pela prévia seleção e encaminhamento do paciente em RiscoNutricional (RN) para avaliações mais sensíveis. A NutritionalRisk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) foi confiável em detectar apresença ou o risco de desenvolver desnutrição em um estudo recente. A Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form(MNA-SF) é voltada para idosos, mas atualmente é amplamente utilizada entre demais adultos, e demonstrou se correlacionar fortemente com a MNA completa.Objetivos: verificar se a aplicação da MNA-SF reclassificará os pacientes internados com resultados semelhantes àNRS-2002 e analisar as concordâncias e discordâncias entreas triagens, considerando a classificação do risco nutricional,ingestão alimentar e perda de peso.Metodologia: estudo transversal realizado com pacientesrecém internados com insuficiência cardíaca, onde a NRS-2002 e a MNA-SF foram aplicadas no mesmo momento, nasprimeiras 72 horas. As avaliações contínuas dos escores NRS2002 e MNA-SF foram apresentadas com a sua relação linear,e descrita por coeficientes de correlação de Pearson. A concordância entre os métodos foi apresentada com intervalos deconfiança de 95% e coeficiente de Kappa.Resultados: foram incluídos 148 pacientes, com média deidade de 63,1 ± 14,0 anos, onde 28 eram desnutridos, 62 eu-tróficos e 38 estavam em sobrepeso ou obesidade segundoIMC. A NRS-2002 classificou 4 pacientes a mais em RN que aMNA-SF (136 vs. 132), porém, apresentaram concordânciafraca (kappa=0,21). Ingestão alimentar e perda de pesoapresentaram discordância significativa. A correlação dePearson foi de -0,44.Conclusão: A NRS-2002 classificou 4 pacientes a mais emRN, onde o IMC e a insuficiência cardíaca foram cruciais paraclassificar os pacientes dessa maneira. Apesar da semelhança,nossa pesquisa apresentou concordância fraca em relação aoRN, condizendo com a literatura. Ingestão alimentar e perdade peso discordaram siginitivamente entre as triagens.(AU)

Introducción: El cribado nutricional es responsable de laselección precoz y derivación de pacientes en riesgo nutricional (RN) para evaluaciones más sensibles. El Nutrition RiskScreening-2002 (NRS-2002) demostró ser fiable para detectar la presencia o el riesgo de desarrollar malnutrición en unestudio reciente. La Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form(MNA-SF) está pensada para personas mayores, pero ahorase utiliza ampliamente entre otros adultos, y ha mostrado unafuerte correlación con la MNA completa. Objetivos: comprobar si la aplicación del MNA-SF reclasifica a los pacientes hospitalizados con resultados similares alos del NRS-2002 y analizar las concordancias y discordanciasentre los cribados, considerando la clasificación de riesgo nu-tricional, la ingesta de alimentos y la pérdida de peso. Metodología: estudio transversal realizado con pacientesrecién hospitalizados con insuficiencia cardiaca, donde se lesaplicó el NRS-2002 y el MNA-SF al mismo tiempo, en las primeras 72 horas. Las evaluaciones continuas de las puntuaciones de NRS 2002 y MNA-SF se presentaron con su relaciónlineal y se describieron mediante los coeficientes de correlación de Pearson. La concordancia entre métodos se mostrócon intervalos de confianza del 95% y coeficiente Kappa.Resultados: se incluyeron 148 pacientes, con una edadmedia de 63,1 ± 14,0 años, donde 28 estaban desnutridos,62 eutróficos y 38 con sobrepeso u obesidad según IMC. ElNRS-2002 clasificó a 4 pacientes más como RN que el MNA-SF (136 vs. 132), sin embargo, presentaron mala concordancia (kappa=0,21). La ingesta de alimentos y la pérdida depeso mostraron un desacuerdo significativo. La correlación dePearson fue de -0,44. Conclusión: La NRS-2002 clasificó a 4 pacientes más enRN, donde el IMC y la insuficiencia cardiaca fueron crucialespara clasificar a los pacientes de esta forma. A pesar de la similitud, nuestra investigación mostró una pobre concordanciarespecto al RN, consistente con la literatura...(AU)

Abstract: Nutritional screening is responsible for the earlyselection and referral of patients at nutritional risk (NR) formore sensitive assessments. The Nutrition Risk Screening-2002 (NRS-2002) was reliable in detecting the presence orrisk of developing malnutrition in a recent study. The MiniNutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA-SF) is intended forthe elderly, but currently is widely used among other adults,and has been shown strongly correlation with the full MNA.Objectives: assess whether the application of the MNA-SFreclassifies inpatients with similar results to those of the NRS-2002 and analyze the concordances and disagreements between the screenings, considering the classification of nutritional risk, dietary intake and weight loss Methodology: crosssectional study carried out withnewly hospitalized patients with heart failure, where the NRS-2002 and the MNA-SF were applied at the same time, in thefirst 72 hours. Continuous assessments of NRS 2002 andMNA-SF scores were presented with their linear relationship,and described by Pearson’s correlation coefficients.Agreement between methods was shown with 95% confidence intervals and Kappa coefficient.Results: 148 patients were included, with a mean age of63.1 ± 14.0 years, where 28 were malnourished, 62 eutrophicand 38 were overweight or obese according to BMI. The NRS-2002 classified 4 more patients as NR than the MNA-SF (136vs. 132), however, they presented poor agreement(kappa=0.21). Food intake and weight loss showed signifi-cant disagreement. Pearson’s correlation was -0.44.Conclusion: The NRS-2002 classified 4 more patients intoNR, where BMI and heart failure were crucial for classifyingpatients this way. Despite the similarity, our investigationshowed poor agreement regarding NR, consistent with the literature. Dietary intake and weight loss disagreed significantlybetween the screenings.(AU)

Effect of a Resuscitation Strategy Targeting Peripheral Perfusion Status vs Serum Lactate Levels on 28-Day Mortality Among Patients With Septic Shock: The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Abnormal peripheral perfusion after septic shock resuscitation has been associated with organ dysfunction and mortality. The potential role of the clinical assessment of peripheral perfusion as a target during resuscitation in early septic shock has not been established. Objective: To determine if a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation during early septic shock in adults is more effective than a lactate level-targeted resuscitation for reducing mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 28 intensive care units in 5 countries. Four-hundred twenty-four patients with septic shock were included between March 2017 and March 2018. The last date of follow-up was June 12, 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to a step-by-step resuscitation protocol aimed at either normalizing capillary refill time (n = 212) or normalizing or decreasing lactate levels at rates greater than 20% per 2 hours (n = 212), during an 8-hour intervention period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were organ dysfunction at 72 hours after randomization, as assessed by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0 [best] to 24 [worst]); death within 90 days; mechanical ventilation-, renal replacement therapy-, and vasopressor-free days within 28 days; intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 424 patients randomized (mean age, 63 years; 226 [53%] women), 416 (98%) completed the trial. By day 28, 74 patients (34.9%) in the peripheral perfusion group and 92 patients (43.4%) in the lactate group had died (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02]; P = .06; risk difference, -8.5% [95% CI, -18.2% to 1.2%]). Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation was associated with less organ dysfunction at 72 hours (mean SOFA score, 5.6 [SD, 4.3] vs 6.6 [SD, 4.7]; mean difference, -1.00 [95% CI, -1.97 to -0.02]; P = .045). There were no significant differences in the other 6 secondary outcomes. No protocol-related serious adverse reactions were confirmed. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with septic shock, a resuscitation strategy targeting normalization of capillary refill time, compared with a strategy targeting serum lactate levels, did not reduce all-cause 28-day mortality. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03078712.

The effects of recruitment maneuver during noninvasive ventilation after coronary bypass grafting: A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary impairment is a common complication after coronary artery bypass graft procedure and may be prevented or treated by noninvasive ventilation. Recruitment maneuvers include sustained airway pressure with high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with hypoxemia, favoring homogeneous pulmonary ventilation and oxygenation. This study aimed to evaluate whether noninvasive ventilation with recruitment maneuver could safely improve oxygenation in patients with atelectasis and hypoxemia who underwent a coronary artery bypass grafting procedure. METHODS: Thirty-four patients admitted to our intensive care unit undergoing mechanical ventilation after surgery, with ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen < 300 and radiologic atelectasis score ≥2, were included. The control group consisted of 16 randomized patients and the recruitment group consisted of 18 patients. After extubation, noninvasive ventilation was applied for 30 minutes 3 times a day with positive end-expiratory pressure of 8 cm H2O. The recruitment group received recruitment maneuver with positive end-expiratory pressure of 15 cm H2O and 20 cm H2O for 2 minutes each during noninvasive ventilation. We analyzed the arterial oxygen partial pressure in room air, radiologic atelectasis score, hemodynamic stability, and adverse events from extubation until discharge. RESULTS: Arterial oxygen partial pressure increased 12.6% ± 6.8% in the control group and 23.3% ± 8.5% in the recruitment group (P < .001). The radiologic atelectasis score was completely improved for 94.4% of the recruitment group with no adverse events, whereas 87.5% of the control group presented some atelectasis (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive ventilation with recruitment maneuvers is safe, improves oxygenation, and reduces atelectasis in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass.