ABSTRACT
Antecedentes: La prevalencia de malnutrición es elevada entre la población mayor. El ingreso hospitalario es una ventana de oportunidad para su detección. Objetivo: Valorar la concordancia de distintas escalas nutricionales en pacientes hospitalizados.Método: Estudio prospectivo en pacientes mayores de 65años no institucionalizados ingresados en un servicio de Medicina Interna. Se compararon 5 encuestas de cribado de malnutrición (MNA, MST, MUST, NRS-2000 y CONUT) y 3 encuestas de cribado de riesgo nutricional (SCREEN3, 8 y 14). Como patrón de referencia se utilizó la definición de malnutrición de la Iniciativa Global para el Liderazgo en Malnutrición (GLIM). Resultados: Se incluyeron 85 pacientes (37% mujeres, mediana de edad 83años). El 48% (IC95%: 38-59%) de los pacientes fueron clasificados como malnutridos según criterios GLIM. La escala SCREEN3 fue la más sensible (93%; IC95%: 87-98) y MUST la más específica (91%; IC95%: 85-99). La escala más eficaz para excluir la sospecha de malnutrición fue SCREEN3 (LR− 0,17; IC95%: 0,05-0,53) y la mejor para confirmarla fue MST (LR+ 7,08; IC95%: 3,06-16,39). La concordancia entre las distintas escalas fue baja o muy baja, con índices kappa entre 0,082 y 0,465.Conclusiones: Se precisa un abordaje integral para detectar la malnutrición en adultos mayores ingresados. Las escalas más sensibles son más útiles en el cribado inicial. Las herramientas de riesgo nutricional podrían ser eficaces en esta etapa. En un segundo paso se debe confirmar la malnutrición de acuerdo con criterios establecidos como los de la GLIM.(AU)
Background: The prevalence of malnutrition is high among the elderly population. Hospital admission is a window of opportunity for its detection. Objective: To assess the concordance of different nutritional scales in hospitalized patients. Methods: Prospective study in non-institutionalized patients over 65years of age admitted to an internal medicine department. Five malnutrition screening surveys (MNA, MST, MUST, NRS-2000 and CONUT) and three nutritional risk screening surveys (SCREEN3, 8 and 14) were compared. As gold standard we use the Global Leadership Initiative for Malnutrition (GLIM) definition of malnutrition. Results: Eighty-five patients (37% female, median age 83years) were included. Forty-eight percent (95%CI: 38-59%) of patients were classified as malnourished according to GLIM criteria. The SCREEN3 scale was the most sensitive (93%; 95%CI: 87-98) and MUST the most specific (91%; 95%CI: 85-99). The most effective scale for excluding suspected malnutrition was SCREEN3 (LR− 0.17; 95%CI: 0.05-0.53) and the best for confirming it was MST (LR+ 7.08; 95%CI: 3.06-16.39). Concordance between the different scales was low or very low with kappa indices between 0.082 and 0.465. Conclusions: A comprehensive approach is needed to detect malnutrition in hospitalized patients. More sensitive scales are more useful in initial screening. Nutritional risk tools could be effective at this stage. In a second step, malnutrition should be confirmed according to established criteria such as GLIM.(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Malnutrition , Health of Institutionalized Elderly , Sarcopenia , Sensitivity and Specificity , Nutrition Assessment , Prospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Health of the ElderlyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of malnutrition is high among the elderly population. Hospital admission is a window of opportunity for its detection. OBJECTIVE: To assess the concordance of different nutritional scales in hospitalized patients. METHODS: Prospective study in non-institutionalized patients over 65 years of age admitted to an internal medicine department. Five malnutrition screening surveys (MNA, MST, MUST, NRS-2000 and CONUT) and three nutritional risk screening surveys (SCREEN 3, 8 and 14) were compared. As gold standard we use the Global Malnutrition Leadership Initiative for Malnutrition (GLIM) definition of malnutrition. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients (37% female, median age 83 years) were included. Forty-eight percent (95% CI 38-59%) of patients were classified as malnourished according to GLIM criteria. The SCREEN 3 scale was the most sensitive (93%; 95% CI 87-98) and MUST the most specific (91%; CI 85-99). The most effective scale for excluding suspected malnutrition was SCREEN 3 (LR- 0.17; 95% CI 0.05-0.53) and the best for confirming it was MST (LR+ 7.08; 95% CI 3.06-16.39). Concordance between the different scales was low or very low with kappa indices between 0.082 and 0.465. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive approach is needed to detect malnutrition in hospitalized patients. More sensitive scales are more useful in initial screening. Nutritional risk tools could be effective at this stage. In a second step, malnutrition should be confirmed according to established criteria such as GLIM.
