RESUMO
The inconsistency of diagnostic criteria for malnutrition has confused clinicians since the 1980s. After the implementation of disease diagnosis related group payment (DRG) in China's public hospitals, the diagnosis of malnutrition and the correct documentation of nutrition-related diagnosis on the front sheet of medical records are related to the correct classification of the disease group and the medical insurance payment. Therefore, the reliable diagnostic criteria for malnutrition, especially disease-related malnutrition, is urgently needed in clinical practice. In September 2018, The global leadership Iinitiative on malnutrition (GLIM) diagnostic criteria consensus was launched. GLIM aimed to provide the explicit and unified diagnostic criteria for malnutrition in adult hospitalized patients. However, GLIM criteria was based on the voting by nutritional experts and was merely a consensus in nature. The clinical validity of GLIM criteria needs prospective verification, i.e., to demonstrate that patients with malnutrition as per GLIM criteria could have improved clinical outcomes with reasonable nutritional interventions. In November 2020, the article titled Nutritional support therapy after GLIM criteria may neglect the benefit of reducing infection complications compared with NRS 2002 was published on the journal Nutrition. It was the first study comparing nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS 2002) and GLIM malnutrition diagnostic criteria among Chinese patients for the indication of nutritional support therapy. The clinical effectiveness of the two tools was retrospectively verified as well. Here we discussed the key points of this retrospective study, including the critical research methods, to inform the currently ongoing prospective validation of the GLIM malnutrition diagnostic criteria (the item of reduced muscle mass not included).
RESUMO
Objective:To investigate the nutritional risk and prevalence of malnutrition in patients with terminal stage gastrointestinal malignant tumors in a tertiary hospital in Changsha.Methods:Cluster sampling was used to conduct a cross-sectional survey of inpatients from Departments of Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery and Oncology in Hunan Provincial People's Hospital from January 2019 to July 2020. Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) was used to assess the prevalence of nutritional risk with malnutrition defined as concurrent presence of BMI < 18.5 kg/m 2, poor general condition and NRS 2002 nutritional impairment score of 3. Step 2 of Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) diagnostic criteria (without whole body muscle mass) was adopted to diagnose malnutrition. Step 3 of GLIM criteria was used to evaluate the prevalence of severe malnutrition. Results:A total of 802 patients registered in the 4 departments were selected for screening via cluster sampling and 514 were enrolled according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The prevalence of nutritional risk in patients with terminal stage gastrointestinal cancer was 49.8% (256/514). The prevalence of malnutrition and severe malnutrition per GLIM criteria were 41.6% (214/514) and 18.3% (94/514), respectively.Conclusions:Although nutritional support therapy is not recommended for patients with end-stage cancer. This paper suggests that the prevalence of nutritional risk and malnutrition in patients with end-stage gastrointestinal cancer is not as high as described in some articles.
RESUMO
In the 42 nd and 44 th workshops of CSPEN-nutritional risk-undernutrition-support-outcome-cost effectiveness ratio (NUSOC) multi-center database collaboration group, Jens Kondrup and Henrik Rasmussen described again the application of NRS 2002, the evidence-based basis of NRS 2002 development and the methodology for prospective validation of clinical effectiveness. There is no gold standard for validation. They both considered that malnutrition could be identified as a score of 3 or more for impaired nutritional status in NRS 2002. Although NRS 2002 is simple and easy to be applied, it is not comprehensive enough for malnutrition diagnosis. ASPEN and ESPEN on-line published the Global Leadership (nutritional) Initiative on Malnutrition(GLIM)diagnosis criteria in September 2018. With the gradual implementation of medicare payment based on diagnosis related groups(DRG)in China, the nutritional risk and the malnutrition diagnosis with Chinese version of ICD-10 (2016) code should be recorded in the first page of the medical records. In this terminology interpretations, the terms of nutritional risk screening(NRS 2002.01.016)and malnutrition diagnosis (GLIM-phenotypic criteria 01.028, etiologic criteria 01.029) published in Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Terminology 2019 are discussed based on the reports given by Kondrup and Rasmussen in Beijing and Zhengzhou.
RESUMO
Objective:To systematically review the methodology in clinical trial-based health economics study with cost-effectiveness ratio for nutritional drug.Methods:The literature on health economics study for nutritional drug was retrieved from PubMed and Wanfang Medical Network by October 2019. The literature was selected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Its methodology such as participants and grouping, confounding factors, research perspective, cost accounting, health outcomes and health economics analysis methods, sensitivity analysis, etc, was systematically reviewed as well.Results:Four target literatures were included in this study. The participants were from gastroenterology, gastrointestinal surgery, etc. Random grouping, regression, propensity score matching method, etc, were used to control confounding factors. The research perspective needed to be clear according to the principle of health economics study. The present literatures focused on "direct medical costs" , and calculated cost-effectiveness ratio or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to evaluate the economics of medical interventions.Conclusion:The evidence of high-quality health economics research in parenteral and enteral nutrition area in China needs to be promoted, especially in the control of confounding factors, the choice of research perspective and sensitivity analysis, which are supposed to be explored by multidisciplinary research teams in practice.
RESUMO
The three steps of nutritional care in Europe, the United States and China were basically same as [Nutritional screening-assessment-intervention]. This review article discussed the second step of GLIM for diagnosis of malnutrition, when the diagnosis of malnutrition being needed. No normal range in healthy volunteer and no cut-off point based on clinical studies for FFMI in China now.
RESUMO
Objective:To assess the current practice in perioperative nutritional managament of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy from 64 level A tertiary hospitals in China, and investigate nutritional managament strategies.Methods:The cross-sectional survey was conducted. From March 31 st to April 13 th, electronic questionnaires of perioperative nutritional management of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were sent to the members of Youth Club of Chinese Pancreatic Surgery Association and some pancreatic surgeons from other level A tertiary hospitals in China. The questionnaires were issued by online Wechat platform. Observation indicators: (1) general data; (2) preoperative nutritional management; (3) intraoperative nutritional management; (4) postoperative nutritional management; (5) comparison of nutritional management among medical centers with different surgical amount. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD. Count data were described as absolute numbers or percentages, and comparison between groups was analyzed using the chi-square test. Results:(1) General data: a total of 96 questionnaires from 64 level A tertiary hospitals in 35 cities of 22 provinces were retrieved. There were 94 males and 2 females, aged (42±7) years, with a range from 29 to 59 years. (2) Preoperative nutritional management. ① Preoperative nutritional evaluation and screening: 62.5%(60/96) of surgeons evaluated preoperative nutritional status for patients. For preoperative screening, 41.7%(40/96) of surgeons performed nutritional screening in every patient, and 54.2%(52/96) performed nutritional screening when considering nutritional support. For screening tools, Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 was used in 66.7%(64/96) of surgeons. For selection of non-tool evaluation parameters, 97.9%(94/96) chose two or more indicators for comprehensive evaluation, 92.7%(89/96) chose Albumin as the evaluation parameter. ② Preoperative nutritional support: there were 13.5%(13/96) of surgeons conducting nutritional support regularly. For preoperative nutritional support methods, nutritional support based on diet was conducted by 94.8%(91/96) of surgeons. For timing of perioperative nutritional support, 43.8%(42/96) of surgeons determined the time according to the surgical time. Based on the theory of enhanced recovery after surgery, 24.0%(23/96)of surgeons routinely gave liquid diet or carbohydrate load at the preoperative 2 hours. (3) Intraoperative nutritional management. ① Intraoperative jejunostomy management: 8.3%(8/96) of surgeons performed routine jejunostomy. ② Intraoperative nutrition line management: the nasojejunal tube was placed intraoperatively by 30.2%(29/96), and the nasogastric tube was placed intraoperatively by 78.1%(75/96). Of the above surgeons, 38.7%(29/75) determined the time to nasogastric tube removal based on gastric volume, and 32.0%(24/75) removed the nasogastric tube after flatus in patients. (4) Postoperative nutritional management. ① Postoperative nutritional support methods: 84.4%(81/96) of surgeons gave nutritional support, in which 56.8%(46/81) mainly gave the parenteral nutrition and transition to diet. Total parenteral nutrition at the postoperative first day or complementary parenteral nutrition was the first choice in 78.1%(75/96) of surgeons, oral feeding at postoperative 7 days was the first choice in 86.5%(83/96) of surgeons. ② Postoperative nutritional management for complications: 63.5%(61/96) of surgeons chose enteral nutritional support through percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy, nasogastric tube or nasojejunal tube for grade B or C pancreatic fistula, 72.9%(70/96) chose enteral nutritional support through percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy or nasojejunal tube for delayed gastric emptying. (5) Comparison of nutritional management among medical centers with different surgical amount: of the 96 surgeons, surgeons in medical centers with surgical amount >100 cases a year had the nasogastric tube placement rate of 66.7%(32/48), and surgeons in medical centers with surgical amount ≤100 cases a year had the nasogastric tube placement rate of 89.6%(43/48), showing a significant difference between the two groups ( χ2=7.375, P<0.05). Conclusions:There is no uniform standards for indications, routes, or timing of perioperative nutritional management of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy among surgeons from level A tertiary hospitals in China. In patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, the theories and practice of perioperative nutritional management and enhanced recovery after surgery are diverse, which urgently require prospective study with nutritional management strategy as intervention and expert consensus on perioperative nutritional managament in pancreatic surgery accorded with clinical practice in China.
RESUMO
It is well known that parenteral and enteral nutrition support is helpful to improve clinical outcomes in patients with malnutrition or nutritional risk, and surgical nutrition has been used in China for 40 years. However, there is still insufficient awareness of malnutrition among clinical workers. There were different opinions from many experts after the publications of the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN) consensus of malnutrition assessment 2015 and ESPEN guidelines on definitions and terminology of clinical nutrition 2017. Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition has also been published in 2018. Though it is lack of clinical validation, it is a big step forward. In order to achieve better prevention and treatment of malnutrition in clinical work, this present paper analyzes and compares the core contents of malnutrition assessment (diagnosis) in recent years, proposes current practical strategy for Chinese clinical workers, emphasizes that GLIM criteria cannot replace the three steps named "screening-assessment-intervention" .
RESUMO
The ultimate goal of the development of parenteral and enteral nutrition is to achieve T3 transfer of translational medicine in this field. This study is an international cooperative, multicenter and observational clinical study conducted by CSPEN-NUSOC cooperative group for 15 years which is aimed to observe the effect of standardized nutritional support on clinical outcome and cost/effect and verify the clinical value parenteral and enteral nutrition through investigating the prevalence of nutritional risk and malnutrition and the application of nutritional support in adult in-patients.
RESUMO
Objective To investigate the prevalence of nutritional risk (NRS2002) and malnutrition inhospitalized stroke patient and their nutritional intervention. Methods The stroke patients admitted to three de-partments of vascular neurology ward including cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral infarction and subarachnoid hemor-rhage in Beijing Tiantan Hospital from January 2018 to January 2019 were recruited using cluster sampling. Nutri-tional risk screening 2002 ( NRS 2002) was used to screen the nutritional risk of inpatients Malnutrition was as-sessed by criteria:(1) body mass index (BMI) <18. 5 kg/m2 with poorer general condition from January 2018 to January 2019;(2) Global leadership initiative on malnutrition ( GLIM) criteria were used except whole body muscle mass measurement from October 2018 to January 2019. The nutritional intervention for patients were closely observed during hospitalization. Results A total of 1532 patients were registered and1036 patients were included in the final analysis considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The prevalence of nutritional risk was 33. 0％ ( 342/1036) . The prevalence of malnutrition based on BMI and GLIM criteria was 0. 9％( 9/1036) and 2. 5％ (10/393) respectively. Among the 342 patients with nutritional risk, 112 patients received nutritional support therapy by tube feeding, but only 29 patients received nutritional support that met guideline standards. 81 patients received not standard nutritional support, and 2 patients received highly unregulated nutritional sup-port. No patients received sugar and electrolyte infusion, oral nutritional supplements ( ONS) , oral nutritional a-gents and compound nutrition intervention. The other 230 patients took hospital diet. Conclusion The prevalence of nutritional risk in hospitalized patients with cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral infarction or subarachnoid hemorrhage was high, and the prevalence of malnutrition was extremely low. There was a low proportion of nutri-tional support. High quality of large sample cohort studies will be conducted to show whether reasonable applica-tion of nutritional support therapy in patients with nutritional risk can improve patient outcome.
RESUMO
The ultimate goal of the development of parenteral and enteral nutrition is to achieve T3 transfer of translational medicine in this field. This study is an international cooperative, multicenter and observational clinical study conducted by CSPEN-NUSOC cooperative group for 15 years which is aimed to observe the effect of standardized nutritional support on clinical outcome and cost/ effect and verify the clinical value parenteral and enteral nutrition through investigating the prevalence of nutritional risk and malnutrition and the application of nutritional support in adult in-patients.