[Optimisation of nutritional screening tool CIPA: are two parameters of protein really necessary?] / Optimización del cribado nutricional CIPA: ¿son necesarios dos parámetros proteicos?

INTRODUCTION: the preliminary nutritional screening tool CIPA (food intake, proteins, anthropometry) is positive when it fulfills one of the following: control food intake (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albumin < 3 g/dl, total protein < 5 g/dl, body mass index (BMI) < 18,5 kg/m2 or mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) ≤ 22,5 cm. The use of two protein parameters increases costs and difficulty; one of them can be suppressed without affecting validity. OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the effectiveness of screening CIPA after exclusion of total protein. METHOD: prospective study of hospitalized patients; prevalence or risk of malnutrition was evaluated through CIPA and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Hospital malnutrition according to complete CIPA screening (with total proteins and albumin, [CIPAc] and without total proteins [CIPAw/p]) and concordance between both methods were analyzed, as well as the association of the positive screening result with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: three hundred and forty-three patients were analyzed. The prevalence or risk of malnutrition identified by complete CIPA (c) was 38.19% (33.02-43.36); by CIPA without protein (w/p), 37.32% (32.17-42.46); and SGA was 29.15% (24.32-33.99). Kappa index: 0.981 between both CIPAs, p < 0.001. Both CIPA and SGA detect patients with higher mortality in hospital and one month after discharge. Early readmission was higher in positive CIPA, statistical significantly in CIPAw/p (screening with positive results 21.88% vs screening with negative results 13.49%, p = 0.044), SGA 20.01% vs 15.23%, p = 0.28. Length of stay was higher in patients with positive screening in CIPAc, CIPAw/p and SGA. CONCLUSIONS: CIPAw/p is equally or more effective than the previously validated full CIPA; therefore, it could replace the latter saving costs. The prevalence of malnutrition is high in both variants and they are able to predict which patient has worse clinical prognosis.

Introducción: el cribado nutricional CIPA (control de ingestas, proteínas, antropometría) preliminar es positivo cuando se cumple uno de los siguientes parámetros: control de ingestas (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albúmina < 3 g/dl, proteínas totales < 5 g/dl, índice de masa corporal (IMC) < 18,5 kg/m2 o circunferencia del brazo (CB) ≤ 22,5 cm (cuando el paciente no se puede pesar/tallar). El uso de dos parámetros proteicos aumenta costes y complejidad, pudiendo suprimirse uno de ellos sin afectar su validez.Objetivos: evaluar la efectividad del cribado CIPA tras exclusión de proteínas totales.Métodos: estudio prospectivo de pacientes hospitalizados valorando prevalencia o riesgo de desnutrición a través de CIPA y valoración global subjetiva (VGS). Análisis de desnutrición hospitalaria según el cribado CIPA completo (con proteínas totales y albúmina, CIPAc) y sin proteínas totales (CIPAs/p), y análisis de la concordancia entre ambos métodos. Estudio de la asociación del resultado positivo del cribado con factores pronósticos.Resultados: se analizaron 343 pacientes. Prevalencia de desnutrición: CIPAc 38,19% (33,02-43,36), CIPAs/p 37,32% (32,17-42,46), VGS 29,15% (24,32-33,99). Índice de correlación Kappa: 0,981 entre ambos CIPA, p < 0,001. Tanto las dos versiones de CIPA como la VGS detectan pacientes con mayor mortalidad hospitalaria y al mes del alta. Reingreso precoz: mayor en CIPA positivo, estadísticamente significativo en CIPAs/p (cribado positivo 21,88% vs. negativo 13,49%, p = 0,044), VGS 20,01% vs. 15,23%, p = 0,28. Estancia media: superior en pacientes con cribado positivo en las dos variantes de CIPA y en VGS.Conclusiones: CIPAs/p es igual o más eficaz que CIPAc validado previamente, por lo que puede sustituir a este último ahorrando costes. La prevalencia de desnutrición es elevada en ambas variantes y son capaces de identificar al paciente con peor pronóstico clínico.

Optimización del cribado nutricional cipa: ¿son necesarios dos parámetros proteicos? / Optimisation of nutritional screening tool CIPA: are two parameters of protein really necessary?

Introducción: el cribado nutricional CIPA (control de ingestas, proteínas, antropometría) preliminar es positivo cuando se cumple uno de los siguientes parámetros: control de ingestas (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albúmina < 3 g/dl, proteínas totales < 5 g/dl, índice de masa corporal (IMC) < 18,5 kg/m2 o circunferencia del brazo (CB) ≤ 22,5 cm (cuando el paciente no se puede pesar/tallar). El uso de dos parámetros proteicos aumenta costes y complejidad, pudiendo suprimirse uno de ellos sin afectar su validez. Objetivos: evaluar la efectividad del cribado CIPA tras exclusión de proteínas totales. Métodos: estudio prospectivo de pacientes hospitalizados valorando prevalencia o riesgo de desnutrición a través de CIPA y valoración global subjetiva (VGS). Análisis de desnutrición hospitalaria según el cribado CIPA completo (con proteínas totales y albúmina, CIPAc) y sin proteínas totales (CIPAs/p), y análisis de la concordancia entre ambos métodos. Estudio de la asociación del resultado positivo del cribado con factores pronósticos. Resultados: se analizaron 343 pacientes. Prevalencia de desnutrición: CIPAc 38,19% (33,02-43,36), CIPAs/p 37,32% (32,17-42,46), VGS 29,15% (24,32-33,99). Índice de correlación Kappa: 0,981 entre ambos CIPA, p < 0,001. Tanto las dos versiones de CIPA como la VGS detectan pacientes con mayor mortalidad hospitalaria y al mes del alta. Reingreso precoz: mayor en CIPA positivo, estadísticamente significativo en CIPAs/p (cribado positivo 21,88% vs. negativo 13,49%, p = 0,044), VGS 20,01% vs. 15,23%, p = 0,28. Estancia media: superior en pacientes con cribado positivo en las dos variantes de CIPA y en VGS. Conclusiones: CIPAs/p es igual o más eficaz que CIPAc validado previamente, por lo que puede sustituir a este último ahorrando costes. La prevalencia de desnutrición es elevada en ambas variantes y son capaces de identificar al paciente con peor pronóstico clínico

Introduction: the preliminary nutritional screening tool CIPA (food intake, proteins, anthropometry) is positive when it fulfills one of the following: control food intake (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albumin < 3 g/dl, total protein < 5 g/dl, body mass index (BMI) < 18,5 kg/m2 or mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) ≤ 22,5 cm. The use of two protein parameters increases costs and difficulty; one of them can be suppressed without affecting validity. Objectives: to evaluate the effectiveness of screening CIPA after exclusion of total protein. Method: prospective study of hospitalized patients; prevalence or risk of malnutrition was evaluated through CIPA and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Hospital malnutrition according to complete CIPA screening (with total proteins and albumin, [CIPAc] and without total proteins [CIPAw/p]) and concordance between both methods were analyzed, as well as the association of the positive screening result with clinical outcomes. Results: three hundred and forty-three patients were analyzed. The prevalence or risk of malnutrition identified by complete CIPA (c) was 38.19% (33.02-43.36); by CIPA without protein (w/p), 37.32% (32.17-42.46); and SGA was 29.15% (24.32-33.99). Kappa index: 0.981 between both CIPAs, p < 0.001. Both CIPA and SGA detect patients with higher mortality in hospital and one month after discharge. Early readmission was higher in positive CIPA, statistical significantly in CIPAw/p (screening with positive results 21.88% vs screening with negative results 13.49%, p = 0.044), SGA 20.01% vs 15.23%, p = 0.28. Length of stay was higher in patients with positive screening in CIPAc, CIPAw/p and SGA. Conclusions: CIPAw/p is equally or more effective than the previously validated full CIPA; therefore, it could replace the latter saving costs. The prevalence of malnutrition is high in both variants and they are able to predict which patient has worse clinical prognosis

Relationship between Mid-Upper Arm Circumference and Body Mass Index in Inpatients.

INTRODUCTION: Nutritional screening is a fundamental aspect of the initial evaluation of the hospitalised patient. Body Mass Index (BMI) in association with other parameters is a good marker of malnutrition (<18.5 kg/m2), but it presents the handicap that the great majority of patients cannot be weighed and measured. For this reason it is necessary to find other indicators that can be measured in these patients. OBJECTIVES: 1) Analyse the relationship between BMI and Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC); 2) establish a cut-off point of MUAC equivalent to BMI <18.5 kg/m2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The anthropometric data of patients hospitalised over the period 2004-2013 were retrospectively revised. The following variables were collected: weight, height, BMI, MUAC, sex and age. RESULTS: 1373 patients were evaluated, who presented a mean weight of: 65.04±15.51 kg; height: 1.66±0.09 m; BMI: 23.48±5.03 kg/m2; MUAC: 26.95±4.50 cm; age: 56.24±16.77. MUAC correlates suitably to BMI by means of the following equation (simple linear regression): BMI = - 0.042 + 0.873 x MUAC (cm) (R2 = 0.609), with a Pearson r value of 0.78 (p<0.001). The area under the curve of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94; p<0.001). The MUAC value ≤22.5 cm presented a sensitivity of 67.7%, specificity of 94.5%, and a correct classification of 90%. No significant statistical differences were found in the cut-off point of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition based on sex (p = 0.115) and age (p = 0.694). CONCLUSIONS: 1) MUAC correlates positively and significantly with BMI. 2) MUAC ≤ 22.5 cm correlates properly with a BMI of <18.5 kg/m2, independent of the age or sex of the patient, although there are other alternatives. MUAC constitutes a useful tool as a marker of malnutrition, fundamentally in patients for whom weight and height cannot be determined.