Nutritional Status, Refeeding Syndrome and Some Associated Factors of Patients at COVID-19 Hospital in Vietnam.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome is associated with COVID-19 and can result in reduced food intake, increased muscle catabolism, and electrolyte imbalance. Therefore COVID-19 patients are at high risk of being malnourished and of refeeding syndrome. The present study aimed to determine the prevalence and correlates of malnutrition and refeeding syndrome (RS) among COVID-19 patients in Hanoi, Vietnam. This prospective cohort study analyzed data from 1207 patients who were treated at the COVID-19 hospital of Hanoi Medical University (HMUH COVID-19) between September 2021 and March 2022. Nutritional status was evaluated by the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) and laboratory markers. GLIM-defined malnutrition was found in 614 (50.9%) patients. Among those with malnutrition, 380 (31.5%) and 234 (19.4%) had moderate and severe malnutrition, respectively. The prevalence of risk of RS was 346 (28.7%). Those with severe and critical COVID symptoms are more likely to be at risk of RS compared to those with mild or moderate COVID, and having severe and critical COVID-19 infection increased the incidence of RS by 2.47 times, compared to mild and moderate disease. There was an association between levels of COVID-19, older ages, comorbidities, the inability of eating independently, hypoalbuminemia and hyponatremia with malnutrition. The proportion of COVID-19 patients who suffered from malnutrition was high. These results underscore the importance of early nutritional screening and assessment in COVID-19 patients, especially those with severe and critical infection.

Refeeding Syndrome and Its Related Factors in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background and Aim: Malnutrition and its complications is usually neglected in critically ill COVID-19 patients. We conducted the present study to investigate the prevalence of refeeding syndrome and its related factors in this group of patients. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 327 patients were assessed for being at risk and developing refeeding syndrome. The criteria was ASPEN consensus recommendations for refeeding syndrome released in 2020. Malnutrition was assessed based on global leadership initiative on malnutrition (GLIM) criteria. The relation between actual protein, calorie intake, and refeeding syndrome was also evaluated via cox regression model. The data concerning calorie and protein intake were gathered for 5 days after initiating feeding. The daily protein and calorie intake were divided by kilogram body weight in order to calculate the actual protein (g/kg/day) and energy (kcal/kg/day) intake. Results: Among the subjects, 268 (82%) were at risk of refeeding syndrome and 116 (36%) got involved in this syndrome. Malnutrition, according to the GLIM criteria, was found in 193 (59%) of the subjects. In the at-risk population, the risk of refeeding syndrome was reduced by 90% with the rise in protein intake (CI; 0.021-0.436, P = 0.002), increased by 1.04 times with the increase in age (CI; 1.032-1.067, P < 0.001), and by 1.19 times with the rise in the days from illness onset to admission (CI; 1.081-1.312, P < 0.001) in adjusted cox model analysis. Conclusion: The incidence of refeeding syndrome is relatively high, which threatens the majority of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Increased protein intake was found to reduce the occurrence of refeeding syndrome.

The validity of the global leadership initiative on malnutrition criteria for diagnosing malnutrition in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: We conducted the present study to investigate the nutritional status of critically ill COVID-19 patients and validate the GLIM criteria with respect to the SGA. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 109 ICU patients were assessed for malnutrition based on GLIM and SGA criteria. The relation between nutrition assessment tools and duration of hospitalization and mortality were also evaluated. The sensitivity and specificity of GLIM criteria concerning the detection of malnutrition was assessed based on the area under the curve. RESULTS: Malnutrition, according to the SGA and GLIM criteria, was found in 68 (62.4%) and 66 (61.5%) of our subjects. There was an optimal agreement between the GLIM criteria and the SGA criteria regarding malnutrition diagnosis (K = 0.85, P < 0.001). The area under curve for the GLIM was stratified based on the SGA results and was 0.927 (95% CI: 0.868-0.985) with a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 93%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Malnutrition is frequently observed in critically ill COVID-19 patients. GLIM criteria is a valid tool and has a strong association with mortality and longer duration of ICU stay.

Malnutrition and nutritional therapy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 disease.

RATIONALE: The prevalence of malnutrition and the provided nutritional therapy were evaluated in all the patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) hospitalized in a 3rd level hospital in Italy. METHODS: A one-day audit was carried out recording: age, measured or estimated body weight (BW) and height, body mass index (BMI, kg/m2), 30-day weight loss (WL), comorbidities, serum albumin and C-reactive protein (CRP: nv < 0.5 mg/dL), hospital diet (HD) intake, oral nutritional supplements (ONS), enteral (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN). Modified NRS-2002 tool and GLIM criteria were used for nutritional risk screening and for the diagnosis of malnutrition, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 268 patients was evaluated; intermediate care units (IMCUs, 61%), sub-intensive care units (SICUs, 8%), intensive care units (ICUs, 17%) and rehabilitation units (RUs, 14%): BMI: <18.5, 9% (higher in RUs, p = 0.008) and ≥30, 13% (higher in ICUs, p = 0.012); WL ≥ 5%, 52% (higher in ICUs and RUs, p = 0.001); CRP >0.5: 78% (higher in ICUs and lower in RUs, p < 0.001); Nutritional risk and malnutrition were present in 77% (higher in ICUs and RUs, p < 0.001) and 50% (higher in ICUs, p = 0.0792) of the patients, respectively. HD intake ≤50%, 39% (higher in IMCUs and ICUs, p < 0.001); ONS, EN and PN were prescribed to 6%, 13% and 5%, respectively. Median energy and protein intake/kg BW were 25 kcal and 1.1 g (both lower in ICUs, p < 0.05) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the patients were at nutritional risk, and one-half of them was malnourished. The frequency of nutritional risk, malnutrition, disease/inflammation burden and decrease intake of HD differed among the intensity of care settings, where the patients were managed according to the severity of the disease. The patient energy and protein intake were at the lowest limit or below the recommended amounts, indicating the need for actions to improve the nutritional care practice.