ObjectiveTo investigate the status of undernutrition, nutritional risk as well as nutritional support in patients with gastrointestinal tumor. MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, patients with gastrointestinal tumor were recruited from Septemper 2009 to June 2011. Patients were screened by using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) at admission. Data of the nutritional risk, application of nutritional support, complications, and tumor staging were collected. ResultsNine hundred and sixty-one patients with gastrointestinal tumor were recruited, the overall prevalence of nutritional risk was 38.9% (374/961) at admission, 49.2% （176/358） in gastric tumor and 32.8% （198/603） in colorectal tumor, respectively. The highest prevalence was found in stage Ⅳ gastric tumor 〔87.3% (48/55)〕 and colorectal tumor 〔58.8% (50/85)〕 while the lowest prevalence was found in stage ⅡA gastric tumor 〔16.1% (5/31)〕 and stageⅠcolorectal tumor 〔9.8% (6/61)〕. 62.3% (152/244) of gastric tumor patients with nutritional risk while 48.6% (144/296) without nutritional risk received nutritional support. 37.7% (92/244) of colorectal tumor patients with nutritional risk while 51.4% (152/296) without nutritional risk received nutritional support. The ratio of parental nutrition and enteral nutrition was 1.251. The rate of complications in the gastrointestinal tumor patients with nutritional risk was higher than that in the patients without nutritional risk 〔32.4% (121/374) versus 20.4% (120/587), P=0.000 0〕. For the gastrointestinal tumor patients with nutritional risk, the complication rate of the patients with nutritional support was significantly lower than that of the patients without nutritional support 〔27.5% (67/244) versus 40.8% (53/130), P=0.008 6〕. For the gas trointestinal tumor patients without nutritional risk, the complication rate of gastric tumor patients with nutritional support was significantly lower than that of the patients without nutritional support (P=0.039 6), while the complication rate was not significantly different in the colorectal tumor patients with nutritional support or not (P=0.464 7). ConclusionsPatient with gastrointestinal tumor has a high nutritional risk which is related to tumor staging. Patients with nutritional risk have more complications, and nutritional support is beneficial to the patients with nutritional risk by a lower complication rate.
ObjectiveTo introduce the progresses and applications of nutritional status assessment in hospitalized patients. MethodsThe related literatures of nutritional status assessment were reviewed. ResultsThe rates of malnutrition and nutritional risk were high in hospitalized patients worldwide. Traditional nutrition assessment tools were not in common use in all hospitalized patients. All clinical health care workers should use the most suitable tool when faced with different patients. ConclusionAll hospitalized patients should be screened for nutritional risk on admission in order to improve clinical outcomes and reduce overall treatment costs.
ObjectiveTo investigate the nutritional risk, incidence of malnutrition, and clinical application of nutrition support in hospitalized patients with gastric cancer by the nutritional risk screening (NRS) 2002 score summary table. MethodsFrom June 2009 to February 2010, nutritional risk screen and application of clinical nutritional support were carried out in the hospitalized patients with gastric cancer in this hospital. Nutritional risk was assessed case-by-case according to the severity of illness, nutritional status 〔including body mass index (BMI), recent changes in body weight and eating〕 and patients age. NRS ≥3 was accepted as nutritionally at-risk, while NRS lt;3 no nutritional risk; BMI lt;18.5 kg/m2 (or albumin lt;30 g/L) combined with clinical conditions was judged to be malnourished. Results Three hundreds and eighty-six patients were included, 329 of which completed the NRS2002 screening. One hundred and sixty-five patients (50.15%) were at nutritional risk, while another 164 (49.85%) were no nutritional risk. Malnutrition was found in 57 patients (17.33%). By gender, male malnourished patients and nutritionally at-risk patients were accounting for 16.45% (38/231) and 48.05% (111/231) respectively, while female nutritionally at-risk patients and malnourished patients were accounting for 55.1% (54/98) and 19.39% (19/98) respectively, 72.04% (237/329) of the screened patients accepted clinical nutrition support, among which, 115 patients were at nutritional risk, accounting for 69.70% in that group, and 122 patients were no nutritional risk, accounting for 74.39% in that group. ConclusionsThe incidences of malnutrition and nutritionally at-risk in hospitalized gastric cancer patients are high. And irrationality of clinical nutrition support exists. Evidence-based guidelines are required to improve the nutritional status of support.
ObjectiveTo investigate the prevalence of the nutritional risks, the relationship between application of nutritional support and the clinical outcome of patients with gastrointestinal major surgery in the Frist People's Hospital of Shuangliu. MethodsGastrointestinal major surgery patients in Department of General Surgery in the Frist People's Hospital of Shuangliu from March 2010 to March 2014 were consecutively enrolled. Patients who provided informed consent were screened by NRS 2002, tracking nutrition support status and analysis the relationship between nutrition support and clinical outcome. In this study, the clinical outcome index included postoperative complications and hospitalization time. ResultsThere were totally 130 cases enrolled, 112 cases completed assessment by NRS 2002. The prevalence of nutritional risk was 75.9%(85/112), there were totally 57 patients(50.9%) received nutrition support, and all for parenteral nutrition. The prevalence of postoperative complication was 46.4%(52/112). The prevalence of postoperative complication in patients who had nutritional risk and received nutritional support was 41.7%(15/36), whereas, in patients who had nutritional risk but not received nutritional support was 73.5%(36/49), there was statistically significant difference between the 2 groups(P=0.002). In patients who not had nutritional risk, the postoperative complication rate was only 3.7%(1/27). ConclusionsBecause of noninvasive and easy to operate, NRS 2002 are adpted to hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal major surgery. Because of the specific of disease metabolism, the higher nutritional risk occurres in patients with gastrointestinal major surgery, appropriate nutritional support for this kinds of patients can reduce the incidence of postoperative complication, and improve the prognosis.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of using alanyl-glutamine dipeptide on clinical outcome for gastric cancer patients with nutritional risk after total gastrectomy. MethodsThis study was carried out in the period from March to August 2015. The nutritional risk was screened by continuous sampling method in the new hospitalized patients with gastric cancer who would undergo total gastrectomy. The patients were grouped randomly. Alanyl-glutamine was given to the experimental group patients. The clinical data of the two groups were analyzed, such as the laboratory parame-ters of nutritional status and hepatorenal function, complications of surgery, the nutrition-related hospitalization day, etc. ResultsThe preoperative data were consistent in the two groups of the included 40 cases. The results showed, in the third and seventh days after surgery, the level of plasma albumin was higher in the experimental group than in the control group〔(33.9±5.6) g/L vs. (30.8±4.0) g/L and (36.6±3.9) g/L vs. (33.9±4.2) g/L, respectively). Also, the CD4+/CD8+ cells immune index was significantly improved in the experimental group after surgery (1.7±0.7 vs. 1.2±0.3, P < 0.05). The recovery time of intestinal function〔(65.7±5.3) h vs. (71.6±7.2)h, P < 0.01)〕and nutrition-related hospitalization day〔(10.1±1.8) d vs. (11.7±1.9)d, P < 0.01)〕in alanyl-glutamine dipeptide group were shorted than that in the control group. No serious adverse drug reactions were found in the patients during the treatment period. ConclusionApplication alanyl-glutamine to the patients with nutritional risk after total gastrectomy could partly improve clinical outcome indicators.
ObjectiveTo evaluate nutritional risk of patients with esophagus cancer before operation using nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002), and explore the relationship between nutritional risk score and postoperative results. MethodsWe prospectively evaluated the nutritional risk of 225 patients with esophagus carcinoma patients who were admitted in Renji Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine between March 2012 and March 2013 using NRS2002, in accordance with disease severity score, nutritional status score and age score(age≥70 years old score was 1 point, < 70 years old for 0 point). There were 136 males and 89 females with age of 64.0±8.2 years (ranged from 41 to 85 years). Postoperative results include postoperative complications, mortality, and length of hospital stay. ResultsThe number of patients with preoperative score≥3 points was 75 (33.3%), < 3 points was 150 (66.7%). The incidence rate of postoperative complications was 26.7% in the patients with NRS2002 score≥3 points, and was 12.0% in those with NRS2002 score < 3 points(P < 0.05). And the total hospital stay time was longer in the patients with NRS2002 score≥3 points than that with NRS2002 score < 3 points(29.80±7.94 d vs. 15.30±2.05 d, P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that the preoperative NRS2002, the underlying diseases, and surgical method were risk factors for postoperative complications. ConclusionsPreoperative NRS2002 score≥3 points can predict more postoperative complications and longer hospital stay time in patients with esophagus carcinoma. It indicates that scientific nutrition support is necessary for esophagus carcinoma patients with NRS2002 score≥3 points. NRS2002 can be used as a predictive index of nutritional risk after operation of esophagus carcinoma.
Objective To explore the efficacy of multidisciplinary nutritional support model in the perioperative management of elderly patients with nutritional risks undergoing joint replacement. Methods Between March 1, 2014 and May 31, 2015, 342 elderly patients who underwent joint replacement due to osteoarthritis were screened with nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002). For patients who got a NRS2002 score of equal to 3 points or higher, nutritional treatment and intervention was carried out by doctor-nurse-rehabilitation therapist-dietitian collaboration and hospital departments related to patients’ complications. Results Among all the 342 patients, 225 (65.79%) had a NRS2002 score of equal to 3 points or higher on the admission day, in which 117 (52.00%) were male and 108 (48.00%) were female, 168 (74.67%) were at the age between 60 and 70 years old and 57 (25.33%) were at the age between 71 and 87. One day before surgery, the number of patients with a NRS2002 score equal to 3 points or higher decreased to 10 (2.92%), and the number became 68 (19.88%) after surgery. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). In those 68 elderly patients, 10 had a preoperative NRS2002 score equal to 3 points or higher, and 58 had newly developed nutritional risks after surgery; there were 23 patients with an age over 75, and 7 over 80. The NRS2002 score of all the 342 patients was below 3 points before discharge. For patients with nutritional risks at different periods before and after surgery, their serum albumin and hemoglobin levels were both improved after the treatment of nutritional support (P<0.05). Conclusion Multidis- ciplinary nutritional support for elderly perioperative patients undergoing joint replacement can reduce the incidence of postoperative complications, providing favorable conditions for the patients to undergo joint replacement surgery.
Objective To investigate the impact of nutritional risk on unplanned readmissions in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), to provide evidence for clinical nutrition support intervention. Methods Elderly patients with COPD meeting the inclusive criteria and admitted between June 2014 and May 2015 were recruited and investigated with nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS 2002) and unplanned readmission scale. Meanwhile, the patients’ body height and body weight were measured for calculating body mass index (BMI). Results The average score of nutritional risk screening of the elderly COPD patients was 4.65±1.33. There were 456 (40.07%) patients who had no nutritional risk and 682 (59.93%) patients who had nutritional risk. There were 47 (4.13%) patients with unplanned readmissions within 15 days, 155 (13.62%) patients within 30 days, 265 (23.28%) patients within 60 days, 336 (29.53%) patients within 180 days, and 705 (61.95%) patients within one year. The patients with nutritional risk had significantly higher possibilities of unplanned readmissions within 60 days, 180 days and one year than the patients with no nutritional risk (all P<0.05). The nutritional risk, age and severity of disease influenced unplanned readmissions of the elderly patients with COPD (all P<0.05). Conclusions There is a close correlation between nutritional risk and unplanned readmissions in elderly patients with COPD. Doctors and nurses should take some measures to reduce the nutritional risk so as to decrease the unplanned readmissions to some degree.
ObjectiveTo explore the nutritional status of inpatients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and analyze the factors affecting nutritional risk, to provide theoretical basis for further nutritional support.MethodsConvenience sampling method was adopted to select 719 inpatients with CKD as research subjects in a tertiary hospital in Chengdu, Sichuan Province from January to March 2018. Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 was used for nutritional risk screening, and chi-square test, t test, one-way analysis of variance, and multiple linear regression analysis were used to explore the influencing factors of nutritional risk.ResultsAmong the 719 cases, whose average nutritional risk score was 1.79±1.11, 158 cases had nutritional risk, accounting for 22.0%. There were statistically significant differences in nutritional risk score between patients of age<60 years and ≥60 years, between males and females, between patients with CKD stage 1-3 and stage 4-5, between patients with serum albumin level <30 g/L and ≥30 g/L, and between patients with and without anaemia (P<0.05). The results of multiple linear regression analysis showed that the nutritional risk score of CKD patients was negatively correlated to serum albumin level (P=0.016), positively correlated to age (P<0.001), and higher in females than that in males (P=0.001).ConclusionsInpatients with CKD have a higher nutritional risk, with age, gender and serum albumin as the main influencing factors. Based on the above factors, the medical staff should continue to take targeted intervention measures to assess the nutritional status of CKD inpatients early and conveniently, so as to provide scientific basis for further nutritional support and nutritional nursing.
ObjectiveTo explore and analyze the nutritional risk and dietary intake of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and provide data support for nutritional intervention.MethodsCOVID-19 inpatients were investigated in Wuhan Wuchang Hospital and the People’s Hospital of Wuhan University (East Area) from March 9th to 16th, 2020 by Nutrition Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002) scale and designed questionnaire. The energy and protein requirements were calculated according to the standard of 30 kcal/(kg·d) and 1.2 g/(kg·d). The nutritional risk, energy and protein intake, body weight and body mass index and their changes in the mild and severe patients were analyzed. The energy and protein intake of the two types of nutritional risk patients was analyzed.ResultsA total of 98 patients with COVID-19 completed the investigation, in whom 46 (46.94%) had nutritional risk, including 32 (39.02%) with mild type and 14 (87.50%) with severe type; and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.001). Compared with the usual condition, the body weight and body mass index of the two types of patients significantly decreased (P<0.01 or P<0.001); the energy and protein intake in mild type patients were significantly higher than those in the severe type patients (P<0.001); compared with the requirement, the protein intake in the two types of patients were significantly lower than the demand, while the energy and protein intake in the mild type patients were significantly lower than the requirement (P<0.05 or P<0.01). The proportion of energy and protein intakes in patients with nutritional risk was significantly higher than that in patients without nutritional risk (P<0.001 or P<0.01); the energy and protein intakes in patients without nutritional risk was significantly higher than that in patients with nutritional risk (P<0.001); the protein intakes in patients with nutritional risk was obviously insufficient (P<0.001); while the energy intake of the patients without nutritional risk was higher than the requirement (P<0.001).ConclusionsCOVID-19 patients has high incidence of nutritional risk which was higher in the severe patients compared with the mild patients. Higher incidence and lower intake of energy and protein are in the severe patients compared with those in the mild patients. Patients with nutritional risk has a higher proportion of energy and protein inadequate intake and lower intake compared with the patients without nutritional risk.