The incidence and mortality of refeeding syndrome in older hospitalized patients, based on three different diagnostic criteria: A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Refeeding syndrome (RFS) lacks both a global definition and diagnostic criteria. Different diagnostic criteria are used; serum phosphate (traditional criterion (TC)), the Friedli consensus recommendations, and the ASPEN. We investigated the incidence of RFS in older hospitalized patients and the mortality rates in patients with or without RFS using these three different diagnostic criteria. METHODS: This is a longitudinal study with data originating from a randomized controlled trial conducted between March 2017 and August 2019. A total of 85 malnourished hospitalized patients at risk of RFS according to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence tool for detecting patients at risk of RFS, were included. All patients were provided with enteral tube feeding, and electrolytes were measured daily during the intervention period. Friedli and ASPEN included phosphate, magnesium, and potassium in their definitions, but used different cut-off values. Incidences were recorded, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine whether mortality was more prevalent in patients with RFS. Regression analysis was used to test for confounders regarding the association between RFS and death, and Kappa was used to test for agreement between the three diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the patients was 79.8 (7.4) years, and the mean (SD) BMI was 18.5 (3.4) kg/m2. The mean (SD) kcal/kg/day was 19 (11) on day one and 26 (15) on day seven. The incidences of RFS differed with the criteria used; 12.9% (TC), 31.8% (Friedli), and 65.9% (ASPEN). Mortality was high, with 36.5% (n = 31) and 56.5% (n = 48) of patients dead at three-month and one-year follow-up, respectively. In the TC, 8/11 (72.7%) with RFS vs. 40/74 (54.1%) without RFS died within one-year, in Friedli 15/27 (55.5%) with RFS vs. 33/58 (56.9%) without RFS died, and in ASPEN 32/56 (65.9%) with RFS, vs. 16/29 (55.2%) without RFS died within one-year. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between patients with or without RFS regardless of which criteria were used. Age was the only variable associated with death at one-year. The Kappa analysis showed very low agreement between the categories. CONCLUSION: Our results show that using different diagnostic criteria significantly impacts incidence rates. However, regardless of criteria used, the mortality was not significantly higher in the group of patients with RFS compared to the patients without RFS. Furthermore, none of the criteria showed a significant association with death at one-year. This supports the need for a global unified diagnostic criterion for RFS. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT03141489).

Development, Design and Utilization of a CDSS for Refeeding Syndrome in Real Life Inpatient Care-A Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: The refeeding syndrome (RFS) is an oftentimes-unrecognized complication of reintroducing nutrition in malnourished patients that can lead to fatal cardiovascular failure. We hypothesized that a clinical decision support system (CDSS) can improve RFS recognition and management. METHODS: We developed an algorithm from current diagnostic criteria for RFS detection, tested the algorithm on a retrospective dataset and combined the final algorithm with therapy and referral recommendations in a knowledge-based CDSS. The CDSS integration into clinical practice was prospectively investigated for six months. RESULTS: The utilization of the RFS-CDSS lead to RFS diagnosis in 13 out of 21 detected cases (62%). It improved patient-related care and documentation, e.g., RFS-specific coding (E87.7), increased from once coded in 30 month in the retrospective cohort to four times in six months in the prospective cohort and doubled the rate of nutrition referrals in true positive patients (retrospective referrals in true positive patients 33% vs. prospective referrals in true positive patients 71%). CONCLUSION: CDSS-facilitated RFS diagnosis is possible and improves RFS recognition. This effect and its impact on patient-related outcomes needs to be further investigated in a large randomized-controlled trial.

Refeeding Syndrome in Pediatric Age, An Unknown Disease: A Narrative Review.

Refeeding syndrome (RS) is characterized by electrolyte imbalances that can occur in malnourished and abruptly refed patients. Typical features of RS are hypophosphatemia, hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and thiamine deficiency. It is a potentially life-threatening condition that can affect both adults and children, although there is scarce evidence in the pediatric literature. The sudden increase in food intake causes a shift in the body's metabolism and electrolyte balance, leading to symptoms such as weakness, seizures, and even heart failure. A proper management with progressive increase in nutrients is essential to prevent the onset of this condition and ensure the best possible outcomes. Moreover, an estimated incidence of up to 7.4% has been observed in pediatric intensive care unit patients receiving nutritional support, alone or as an adjunct. To prevent RS, it is important to carefully monitor feeding resumption, particularly in severely malnourished individuals. A proper strategy should start with small amounts of low-calorie fluids and gradually increasing the calorie content and amount of food over several days. Close monitoring of electrolyte levels is critical and prophylactic use of dietary supplements such as thiamine may be required to correct any imbalances that may occur. In this narrative review, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of RS in pediatric clinical practice and provide a possible management algorithm.

Assessment of refeeding syndrome definitions and 30-day mortality in critically ill adults: A comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk for refeeding syndrome (RFS), yet there is uncertainty regarding how RFS should be operationalized in the ICU. We evaluated different definitions for RFS and tested how they associated with patient-centered outcomes in the ICU. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparison study. Patients age ≥18 years were eligible if they were newly initiated on enteral feeding while hospitalized in the ICU. Eight definitions for RFS were operationalized, including that from the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), all based on electrolyte levels from immediately before until up to 5 days after the initiation of enteral nutrition. Patients were followed for death or for ICU-free days, a measure of healthcare utilization. RESULTS: In all, 2123 patients were identified, including 406 (19.1%) who died within 30 days of ICU admission and 1717 (80.9%) who did not. Prevalence of RFS varied from 1.5% to 88% (ASPEN definition) depending on the RFS definition used. The excess risk for death associated with RFS varied from 33% to 92% across definitions. The development of RFS based on the ASPEN definition was associated with a greater decrease in ICU-free days compared with other definitions, but the relationship was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Eight definitions for RFS were evaluated, none of which showed strong associations with death or ICU-free days. It may be challenging to achieve a standardized definition for RFS that is based on electrolyte values and predicts mortality or ICU-free days.

Refeeding Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Refeeding syndrome (RFS) can occur in malnourished patients when normal, enteral, or parenteral feeding is resumed. The syndrome often goes unrecognized and may, in the most severe cases, result in death. The diagnosis of RFS can be crucially facilitated by the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSS). METHODS: The literature in PubMed was searched for current treatment recommendations, randomized intervention studies, and publications on RFS and CDSS. We also took account of insights gained from the development and implementation of our own CDSS for the diagnosis of RFS. RESULTS: The identification of high-risk patients and the recognition of manifest RFS is clinically challenging due to the syndrome's unspecific symptoms and physicians' lack of awareness of the risk of this condition. The literature shows that compared to patients without RFS, malnourished patients with RFS have significantly greater 6-month mortality (odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval: [1.04; 2.28]) and an elevated risk of admission to intensive care (odds ratio 2.71 [1.01; 7.27]). In a prospective testing program, use of our own CDSS led to correct diagnosis in two thirds of cases. CONCLUSION: RFS is difficult to detect and represents a high risk to the patients affected. Appropriate CDSS can identify such patients and ensure proper professional care.

The Performances of SNAQ, GLIM, mNICE, and ASPEN for Identification of Neurocritically Ill Patients at High Risk of Developing Refeeding Syndrome.

We previously found that neurocritically ill patients are prone to refeeding syndrome (RFS), a potentially life-threatening complication. However, there is no unified or validated consensus on the screening tool for RFS so far. We aimed to validate and compare the performance of four screening tools for RFS in neurocritically ill patients. We conducted a single-center, observational, retrospective cohort study among neurocritically ill adult patients who were admitted to the neurocritical care unit (NCU), and who received enteral nutrition for 72 h or longer. They were scored on the Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM), the modified criteria of the Britain's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (mNICE), and ASPEN Consensus Recommendations for Refeeding Syndrome (ASPEN) scales to predict RFS risk via admission data. The performance of each scale in predicting RFS was evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent risk factors for RFS, and they were added to the above scales to strengthen the identification of RFS. Of the 478 patients included, 84 (17.57%) developed RFS. The sensitivity of the SNAQ and GLIM was only 20.2% (12.6-30.7%), although they had excellent specificities of 84.8% (80.8-88.1%) and 86.0% (82.1-89.2%), respectively; mNICE predicted RFS with a sensitivity of 48.8% (37.8-59.9%) and a specificity of 65.0% (60.0-69.9%); ASPEN had the highest Youden index, with a sensitivity and specificity of 53.6% (42.4-64.4%) and 64.7% (59.8-69.4%), respectively. The Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curves (AUC) of SNAQ, GLIM, mNICE, and ASPEN to predict RFS were 0.516 (0.470-0.561), 0.533 (0.487-0.579), 0.568 (0.522-0.613), and 0.597 (0.551-0.641), respectively. We identified age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score as independent risk factors of RFS, and the combination of GCS and age can improve the AUC of ASPEN to 0.664 (0.620-0.706) for predicting RFS. SNAQ, GLIM, mNICE, and ASPEN do not perform well in identifying neurocritically ill patients at high risk of RFS, although ASPEN appears to have relatively a good validity among them. Combining GCS and age with ASPEN slightly improves RFS recognition, but it still leaves a lot of room for improvement.

Refeeding Syndrome: A Critical Reality in Patients with Chronic Disease.

Malnutrition is one of the most frequent metabolic challenges in the population of chronically ill patients. This results in increased administration of nutritional therapy in inpatient settings, which poses the risk of side effects, in particular, the development of refeeding syndrome. If not managed accordingly, it leads to a significant rise in morbidity and mortality. However, despite its importance, evidence-based recommendations on the management of refeeding syndrome are largely lacking, and only a few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. In light of this, the aim of this review is to raise awareness of refeeding syndrome in chronically ill patients by critically reviewing recent literature and providing a short overview as well as diagnosis and treatment algorithms of this underreported metabolic condition. In summary, recent findings suggest undergoing risk assessment and stratification for every patient receiving nutritional therapy. According to this, adaptation of energy and fluid support during the replenishment phase should be implemented in the nutritional therapy for patients at high risk. Additionally, continuous monitoring should take place, and appropriate actions should be initiated when necessary.

[Refeeding Syndrome: Where Do We Stand in 2022?] / Refeeding-Syndrom: Wo stehen wir 2022?

Refeeding Syndrome: Where Do We Stand in 2022? Abstract. The refeeding syndrome is a potentially life-threatening condition that can occur when refeeding malnourished patients. In recent years, two consensus manuscripts were published by the major clinical nutrition societies ESPEN and ASPEN. Pathophysiological aspects, clinical manifestations, prevention measures and criteria for diagnosis and management have been described in detail. The aim of this mini-review is to provide an evidence-based overview on the refeeding syndrome. For this purpose, the systematic literature search by Friedli et al. 2015 was updated. Evidence that the refeeding syndrome is associated with a negative clinical outcome exists. Many questions about management aspects remain unanswered. A robust randomized controlled trial is urgently needed to answer all these questions in an evidence-based manner and to elicit reliable evidence about independent predictors and an estimate of metabolic risk.

Evaluation of the ASPEN guidelines for refeeding syndrome among hospitalized patients receiving enteral nutrition: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, refeeding syndrome (RFS) has lacked standardized diagnostic criteria. This study sought to (1) determine whether RFS, as operationalized in the 2020 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) guideline definition, is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and (2) identify key risk factors for RFS. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, adults hospitalized from 2015 to 2019 were included if they were ordered for enteral feeding during hospitalization. Data were collected for up to 30 days, and RFS was operationalized as per the ASPEN 2020 guidelines as a ≥10% (corresponding to mild RFS), ≥25% (moderate), and ≥50% (severe) decline in prefeeding serum phosphorus, magnesium, or potassium. The mortality associated with RFS was assessed, and risk factors for RFS were identified using multivariable logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: Of 3854 participants, 3480 (90%) developed mild RFS. Thirty-day mortality was higher in those without mild RFS (24%) than in those with mild RFS (18%) (P < 0.01). When RFS was reoperationalized as a 50% decline in electrolytes, 25% of patients developed RFS with a 20% 30-day mortality. Risk factors for development of RFS included renal failure, elevated creatinine, and low platelets; additionally, prefeeding serum phosphorus level was strongly associated with development of RFS (adjusted odds ratio, 6.09; 95% confidence interval, 4.95-7.49 for those in the highest tertile of prefeeding phosphorus compared with the lowest). CONCLUSION: The ASPEN operationalization of RFS as a decline in baseline electrolyte values was not associated with death. Prefeeding serum phosphorus level strongly predicted severe RFS.

Explainable machine learning model to predict refeeding hypophosphatemia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Refeeding syndrome (RFS) is a disease that occurs when feeding is restarted and metabolism changes from catabolic to anabolic status. RFS can manifest variously, ranging from asymptomatic to fatal, therefore it may easily be overlooked. RFS prediction using explainable machine learning can improve diagnosis and treatment. Our study aimed to propose a machine learning model for RFS prediction, specifically refeeding hypophosphatemia, to evaluate its performance compared with conventional regression models, and to explain the machine learning classification through Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) values. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including 806 patients, with 2 or more days of nothing-by-mouth prescription, and with phosphate (P) level measurements within 5 days of refeeding were selected. We divided the patients into hypophosphatemia (n = 367) and non-hypophosphatemia groups (n = 439) at a P level of 0.8 mmol/L. Among the features examined within 48 h after admission, we reviewed laboratory test results and electronic medical records. Logistic, Lasso, and ridge regressions were used as conventional models, and performances were compared with our extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) machine learning model using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Our model was explained using the SHAP value. RESULTS: The areas under the curve were 0.950 (95% confidence interval: 0.924-0.975) for our XGBoost machine learning model and surpassed the performance of conventional regression models; 0.760 (0.707-0.813) for logistic regression, 0.751 (0.694-0.807) for Lasso regression, and 0.758 (0.701-0.809) for ridge regression. According to the SHAP values in the order of importance, low initial P, recent weight loss, high creatinine, diabetes mellitus with insulin use, low haemoglobin A1c, furosemide use, intensive care unit admission, blood urea nitrogen level of 19-65, parenteral nutrition, magnesium below or above the normal range, low potassium, and older age were features to predict refeeding hypophosphatemia. CONCLUSIONS: The machine learning model for predicting RFS has a substantially higher effectiveness than conventional regression methods. Creating an accurate risk assessment tool based on machine learning for early identification of patients at risk for RFS can enable careful nutrition management planning and monitoring in the intensive care unit, towards reducing the incidence of RFS-related morbidity and mortality.

Role and knowledge of critical care nurses in the assessment and management of hypophosphataemia and refeeding syndrome. A descriptive exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the perceived and actual role of critical care nurses in nutritional care, and their knowledge regarding the identification and management of hypophosphataemia and refeeding syndrome. DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected in one intensive care unit in Israel, from a self-administered questionnaire completed by 42 critical care nurses. The questionnaire was designed to assess their perceived and actual roles in the administration of nutritional care, and knowledge regarding electrolyte monitoring, hypophosphataemia and refeeding syndrome, including risk factors, consequences, and treatment. RESULTS: The majority participants that dieticians are solely responsible for nutrition care and follow-up. Most agreed that the measurement of phosphate levels was not important and that patients should receive full nutrition upon admission, while important risk factors for the development of refeeding syndrome were not recognised or considered. This informed their actual practice. A correlation was found between nurses' knowledge and their actual practice so that the greater the nurses' knowledge, the more they adhered to current nutrition guidelines (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed critical care nurses' lack of clarity of their role and lack of knowledge regarding nutrition care. We suggest that this complex task is best managed by a multidisciplinary team, including nurses and dieticians, with clear role definitions.

Incidence of Refeeding Syndrome in Pediatric Inpatients at the US-Mexico Border.

OBJECTIVES: Refeeding syndrome is a life-threatening, physiological process that occurs when patients with severe malnutrition are too rapidly rehabilitated, leading to the development of electrolyte abnormalities. Hypophosphatemia, a hallmark of the disease, has most commonly been studied, because it is recognized to result in cardiac arrhythmias, seizures, cardiac failure, respiratory failure, rhabdomyolysis, coma, and even death. Although many studies have found caloric intake to be a main causal factor in refeeding syndrome, few have explored other factors, such as geographic location. Border cities, such as El Paso, Texas, have a unique, diverse population. The purpose of this study was to establish the incidence of refeeding syndrome concentrated within a border city. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review that focused on the incidence of refeeding syndrome in pediatric patients with eating disorders, ages 10 to 19 years, admitted to El Paso Children's Hospital, the only tertiary teaching hospital in the area, associated with Texas Tech University Health Science Center, located along the US-Mexico border, in El Paso, Texas. RESULTS: Twenty-six subjects with a diagnosis of eating disorder were admitted to El Paso Children's Hospital for treatment between 2012 and 2019. Five subjects developed refeeding syndrome, recognized in our study as hypokalemia or hypomagnesemia, during their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized adolescents admitted to El Paso Children's Hospital, 19% developed refeeding syndrome. This incidence was higher in our population than had been previously reported. Further research is needed to better establish a protocol for the treatment of patients with eating disorders.

The incidence of the refeeding syndrome. A systematic review and meta-analyses of literature.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The refeeding syndrome (RFS) has been recognized as a potentially life-threatening metabolic complication of re-nutrition, but the definition widely varies and, its incidence is unknown. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to estimate the incidence of RFS in adults by considering the definition used by the authors as well as the recent criteria proposed by the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) consensus. Furthermore, the incidence of refeeding hypophosphatemia (RH) was also assessed. METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched until September 2020 for retrieving trials and observational studies. The incidences of RFS and RH were expressed as percentage and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Thirty-five observational studies were included in the analysis. The risk of bias was serious in 16 studies and moderate in the remaining 19. The incidence of RFS varied from 0% to 62% across the studies. No substantial change in the originally reported incidence of RFS was found by applying the ASPEN criteria. Similarly, the incidence of RH ranged between 7% and 62%. In the subgroup analyses, inpatients from Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and those initially fed with >20 kcal/kg/day seemed to have a higher incidence of both RFS (pooled incidence = 44%; 95% CI 36%-52%) and RH (pooled incidence = 27%; 95% CI 21%-34%). However, due to the high heterogeneity of data, summary incidence measures are meaningless. CONCLUSION: The incidence rate of both RFS and RH greatly varied according to the definition used and the population analyzed, being higher in ICU inpatients and in those with increased initial caloric supply. Therefore, a universally accepted definition for RFS, taking different clinical contexts and groups of patients into account, is still needed to better characterize the syndrome and its approach.

Hyperemesis gravidarum induced refeeding syndrome causes blood cell destruction: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a common complication during pregnancy, however, HG associated simultaneous onset of blood cell destruction due to electrolyte abnormalities is rare. In this case, a woman with refeeding syndrome (RFS) secondary to electrolyte abnormalities caused by severe HG was diagnosed and managed in our hospital. CASE PRESENTATION: A 29-year old woman was sent to the local hospitals because of severe HG with appetite loss, weight reduction, general fatigue, and she was identified to have severe electrolyte abnormalities. However, the electrolyte abnormalities were not corrected promptly, and then she had the symptoms of stillbirth, altered mental status, visual hallucination, hemolytic anemia and thrombocytopenia. After transferred to our hospital, we continued to correct the electrolyte abnormalities and the labor induction was performed as soon as possible. The symptoms of blood cell destruction were relieved obviously, and the patient discharged four days later. The electrolyte disturbances and physio-metabolic abnormalities caused by HG helped us diagnose this case as RFS. CONCLUSIONS: This case emphasizes that patients with RFS should be diagnosed appropriately and intervened promptly in order to prevent electrolyte imbalance induced blood cell destruction.

[Refeeding syndrome]. / Syndrome de renutrition inappropriée.

Refeeding syndrome (RS) is a rare but severe condition that is poorly understood, often under-diagnosed and can lead to death. It occurs within 5 days after refeeding in patients after prolonged fasting or in a context of undernutrition. As a consequence of the abrupt transition from catabolism to anabolism, RS is defined as a decrease in plasma levels of phosphorus, potassium and/or magnesium, whether or not associated with organ dysfunction resulting from a decrease in one of the electrolytes or a thiamine deficiency, after refeeding. The clinical symptoms are varied and non-specific and are related to hydro electrolyte disorders, sodium-hydroxide retention or failure of one or more organs. Patient management should be appropriate with regular clinical examination and careful biological monitoring, including hydro electrolyte monitoring. The correction of hydroelectrolytic disorders and systematic thiamine supplementation are essential during refeeding, that must be done carefully and very progressively, whatever its form (oral, enteral or parenteral). The severity of the refeeding syndrome indicates that its prevention and screening are the corners of its management in at-risk patients.

Mortality associated with new risk classification of developing refeeding syndrome in critically ill patients: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although refeeding syndrome (RFS) has been recognized as a potentially fatal metabolic complication, the definition of RFS has remained unclear. Recently, European researchers suggested an evidence-based and consensus-supported algorithm that consisted of a new RFS risk classification and treatment strategies for medical inpatients. The classification was based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) criteria for patients at risk of developing RFS. In this study, we aimed to investigate the frequency of each applied new risk group and the association between the new classification and mortality in critically ill patients. METHODS: This cohort study was conducted at a Japanese metropolitan tertiary-care university hospital from December 2016 to December 2018. We included critically ill adult patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) via the emergency department and who stayed in the ICU for 24 h or longer. We applied the new risk classification based on the NICE RFS risk factors on ICU admission. The main exposure was risk classification of RFS: no risk, low risk, high risk, or very high risk. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality censored at day 30 after ICU admission. We performed a multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: We analyzed 542 patients who met the eligibility criteria. The prevalence of the four RFS risk classification groups was 25.8% for no risk, 25.7% for low risk, 46.5% for high risk, and 2.0% for very high risk. The 30-day mortality was 5.0%, 7.2%, 16.3%, and 27.3%, respectively (log-rank trend test: p < 0.001). In the multivariable Cox regression, adjusted hazard ratios with no risk group as a reference were 1.28 (95% CI 0.48-3.38) for low risk, 2.81 (95% CI 1.24-6.35) for high risk, and 3.17 (95% CI 0.78-12.91) for very high risk. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half the critically ill patients were categorized as high or very high risk based on the new risk classification. Furthermore, as the risk categories progressed, the 30-day in-hospital mortality increased. Early recognition of patients at risk of developing RFS may improve patient outcomes through timely and optimal nutritional treatment.

The Refeeding Syndrome: a neglected but potentially serious condition for inpatients. A narrative review.

The Refeeding Syndrome (RFS) is a potentially serious, but still overlooked condition, occurring in individuals who are rapidly fed after a period of severe undernourishment. RFS derives from an abnormal electrolyte and fluid shifts leading to many organ dysfunctions. Symptoms generally appear within 2-5 days of re-feeding and may be absent/mild or severe and life threating, depending on the pre-existing degree of malnutrition and comorbidities. The lack of a standard definition and the nonspecificity of the symptoms make both incidence estimate and diagnosis difficult. In 2020, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) proposed a unifying definition for the RFS and its severity classification. The awareness of the condition is crucial for identifying patients at risk, preventing its occurrence, and improving the management. The objectives of this narrative review were to summarize the current knowledge and recommendations about the RFS and to provide useful tips to help physicians to recognize and prevent the syndrome.

Refeeding Hypophosphatemia in Patients Receiving Parenteral Nutrition: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Predicting Its Occurrence.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN) support may develop refeeding hypophosphatemia (RH), and its prevalence is highly variable in the literature. Identifying at-risk patients is crucial to minimize clinical complications. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines are used widely to assess the risk of RH, but they lack validation. We aim to (1) identify the prevalence of RH by multiple diagnostic criteria; (2) assess the predictive ability of the NICE guidelines for RH; and (3) identify important risk factors for RH and evaluate their predictive abilities for RH in a new model. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study on adult patients with PN ≥48 hours. Prevalence of RH was determined by 4 established diagnostic criteria. Prognostic accuracy of the NICE guidelines were assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to develop a new risk-assessment model. RESULTS: Of 149 enrolled patients, 23%-48% (35 to 72 of 149 patients) developed RH (depending on the diagnostic criteria used). The NICE guidelines demonstrated poor discrimination across all diagnostic criteria (ROC, 0.43-0.53). Critical illness, the use of diuretics, and hypomagnesemia prior to PN were independently associated with RH. These risk factors formed the new model for predicting RH and had good discrimination (ROC 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.82). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of RH varied according to established diagnostic criteria. The current NICE guidelines poorly predict the occurrence of RH, and modification is likely beneficial. A new risk-assessment model was developed; nevertheless, further validation is required.