Use of Subjective Global Assessment, Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 to evaluate the nutritional status of non-critically ill patients on parenteral nutrition

• Autores: Maria Bella Badia Tahull, Sara Cobo Sacristán, E. Leiva Badosa, M. E. Miquel Zurita, Nadia Mendez Cabaleiro, Ramón José Jódar Masanés, Josep Manuel Llop Talaverón
• Localización: Nutrición hospitalaria: Órgano oficial de la Sociedad Española de Nutrición Clínica y Metabolismo (SENPE), ISSN-e 1699-5198, ISSN 0212-1611, Vol. 29, Nº. 2, 2014, págs. 411-419
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Objective:

    To evaluate the nutritional status of non-critically ill digestive surgery patients at the moment of parenteral nutrition initiation using three different nutritional test tools and to study their correlation. To study the association between the tests and the clinical and laboratory parameters used in the follow-up of PN treatment.

    Methods:

    Prospective study over 4 months. Anthropometric and clinical variables were recorded. Results of Subjective Global Assessment; Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment; and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 were compared applying kappa test. Relationship between the clinical and laboratory parameters with Subjective Global Assessment was studied by multinominal regression and with the other two tests by multiple linear regression models. Age and sex were included as adjustment variables.

    Results:

    Malnutrition in 45 studied patients varied from 51% to 57%. Subjective Global Assessment correlated well with Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (? = 0531 p = 0.000). The test with the greatest correlation with the clinical and analytical variables was the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002. Worse nutritional state in this test was associated with worse results in albumin (B= -0.087; CI = -0.169/-0.005], prealbumin (B = -0.005; CI = [-0.011/-0.001]), C-reactive protein (B = 0.006;CI = [0.001/0.011]) and leukocytes (B = 0.134; CI = [0.031/0.237]) at the en of parenteral nutrition treatment.

    Conclusions:

    Half of the digestive surgery patients were at malnutritional risk at the moment of initiating parenteral nutrition. Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 was the test with best association with the parameters used in the clinical follow-up of parenteral nutrition treated patients.