- Email: [email protected]
MON-LB313: Evaluation of Nutritional Status in Pre-Operative Patients with Gastrointestinal System Cancer with Two Different Nutritional Screening Tools
S294
Poster
Disclosure of Interest: T. Oshima Grant/Research Support from: Public Foundation Nutrition 2000plus, Geneva University Hospital, Other: COSMED, Nestle, Y.-M. Dupertuis: None declared, S. Graf: None declared, A.-M. Makhlouf: None declared, M. Ragusa Other: COSMED, C.-P. Heidegger Other: Baxter, Nestle Nutrition, C. Pichard Grant/ Research Support from: Swiss National Science Foundation, Nestle Nutrition, Baxter, BBraun, Fresenius-Kabi, COSMED, Consultant for: Baxter, Abbott, BBraun, COSMED, Fresenius-Kabi, Novartis, Danone, Pfizer, Solvay, Vifor.
MON-LB313 EVALUATION OF NUTRITIONAL STATUS IN PRE-OPERATIVE PATIENTS WITH GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM CANCER WITH TWO DIFFERENT NUTRITIONAL SCREENING TOOLS A. Sahin Kaya1 *, A. G. Pekcan2. 1Nutrition and Dietetics, Namık Kemal University School of Health, Tekirdağ, 2Nutrition and Dietetics, Hasan Kalyoncu University School of Health, Gaziantep, Turkey
MON-LB312 QUALITY INDICATOR FOR NUTRITIONAL MANAGEMENT OF HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS A. L. C. C. Rodrigues1 *, A. N. Severine1, A. Yamaguti1. 1 Nutrition, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
Rationale: To determine the nutritional status of gastrointestinal cancer patients with two different nutritional screening tools and compare the tools. Methods: This study was held in 110 patients (female; 41.8% male: 58.2%), aged 19–65 years, admitted to hospital, diagnosed with gastrointestinal system cancer (not operated). The objective was to determine the nutritional status of the patients with nutrition screening tools (Subjective Global Assessment-SGA, Nutritional Risk Screening-NRS 2002), compare the tools, and describe the malnutrition status of patients. Socio-demographic characteristics, anthropometric measurements, biochemical parameters and 24-hour dietary recalls, frequency of foods consumed were determined. Results: Out of total, 54.7% of males and 56.5% of females had normal Body Mass Index-BMI. Using SGA, 49.1% of the patients had serious, 41.8% had moderate degree of malnutrition. According to NRS-2002, percentages of severely, moderately and mildly undernourished patients were 54.6%, 33.6% and 11.8%, respectively. The percentage of patients meeting the recommended daily allowances was 47.2% and 58.1%, respectively for males and females. According to NRS and SGA tools, statistically significant differences with current weight, ideal body weight, usual body weight, percentage of weight loss, BMI, mid-upper arm circumference, triceps skinfold thickness, mid-upper arm muscle area, mid-upper arm muscle circumference and mid-upper arm fat area ( p < 0.05) were found. Nutritional status of patients with SGA and NRS tests showed consistent similarity (κ = 0.671, p < 0.001). Similar changes were found between SGA and NRS scores. Consistency was found statistically significant (r = 0.786 and p =< 0.001). Conclusion: One of the malnutrition screening tools could be preoperatively applied in gastrointestinal system cancer patients. Nutritional support should be planned and administered, when needed.
Rationale: Malnutrition can adversely affect the clinical evolution of hospitalized patients, increasing the incidence of infections, associated diseases and postoperative complications and prolonging the length of stay and hospital costs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of nutritional management to hospitalized patients through a quality indicator. Methods: This study describes the monitoring of the indicator to evaluate the quality of nutritional care in order to facilitate the diagnosis of nutritional disorders and the follow-up of dietary interventions. A database containing information on nutritional markers such as the presence of edema, changes in laboratory tests, altered anthropometric variables (Body Mass Index, Calf Circumference in the elderly over 60 years, Brachial Circumference and Bioelectrical Impedance analysis) has been obtained. Three quality indicators have been monitored: improvement of nutritional status, maintenance of nutritional status and worsening of nutritional status, being monitored every 10 days of hospitalization of each patient at nutritional risk. Results: 7936 patients at nutritional risk have been evaluated between March 2016 and March 2017. From those 677 patients presented improvement in nutritional status, 6.515 maintained nutritional status and 744 worsened their nutritional status. All patients with worsening nutritional status received individualized nutritional interventions to ensure the best therapy for clinical recovery or quality of life. The average nutritional interventions were: 11 enteral/parenteral nutrition therapy adjustments; 5 proteins, lipids and fiber modules introduction; 13 nutritional supplements introduction or adaptation and 10 dietary changes to improve food acceptance. Conclusion: It is paramount to systematically evaluate the nutritional status of patients at nutritional risk for adequate interventions in the prevention and treatment of malnutrition. Reference Kondrup J, Allison SP, Elia M, et al. ESPEN Guidelines for Nutrition Screening 2002. Clin Nutr 2003; 22(4):415–21. Disclosure of Interest: None declared.
Disclosure of Interest: None declared.
MON-LB314 AN EVALUATION OF THE SUGGESTED ESPEN MALNUTRITION CRITERIA IN LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA FOR MALNUTRITION AS PRESENTED IN THE NORWEGIAN NATIONAL GUIDELINES H. K. Brekke1, E. Hoeisaether1, C. Holth1 *. 1University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Rationale: The European society of clinical nutrition and metabolism (ESPEN) recently published a consensus for malnutrition criteria. Our aim was to evaluate the newly suggested ESPEN malnutrition criteria (EMC) in light of the currently used Norwegian national criteria for malnutrition (ICD-10 NO) in cancer patients. Furthermore, we aimed to examine the overlap between the three ESPEN criteria, and whether bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) could replace
Poster
Disclosure of Interest: T. Oshima Grant/Research Support from: Public Foundation Nutrition 2000plus, Geneva University Hospital, Other: COSMED, Nestle, Y.-M. Dupertuis: None declared, S. Graf: None declared, A.-M. Makhlouf: None declared, M. Ragusa Other: COSMED, C.-P. Heidegger Other: Baxter, Nestle Nutrition, C. Pichard Grant/ Research Support from: Swiss National Science Foundation, Nestle Nutrition, Baxter, BBraun, Fresenius-Kabi, COSMED, Consultant for: Baxter, Abbott, BBraun, COSMED, Fresenius-Kabi, Novartis, Danone, Pfizer, Solvay, Vifor.
MON-LB313 EVALUATION OF NUTRITIONAL STATUS IN PRE-OPERATIVE PATIENTS WITH GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM CANCER WITH TWO DIFFERENT NUTRITIONAL SCREENING TOOLS A. Sahin Kaya1 *, A. G. Pekcan2. 1Nutrition and Dietetics, Namık Kemal University School of Health, Tekirdağ, 2Nutrition and Dietetics, Hasan Kalyoncu University School of Health, Gaziantep, Turkey
MON-LB312 QUALITY INDICATOR FOR NUTRITIONAL MANAGEMENT OF HOSPITALIZED PATIENTS A. L. C. C. Rodrigues1 *, A. N. Severine1, A. Yamaguti1. 1 Nutrition, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
Rationale: To determine the nutritional status of gastrointestinal cancer patients with two different nutritional screening tools and compare the tools. Methods: This study was held in 110 patients (female; 41.8% male: 58.2%), aged 19–65 years, admitted to hospital, diagnosed with gastrointestinal system cancer (not operated). The objective was to determine the nutritional status of the patients with nutrition screening tools (Subjective Global Assessment-SGA, Nutritional Risk Screening-NRS 2002), compare the tools, and describe the malnutrition status of patients. Socio-demographic characteristics, anthropometric measurements, biochemical parameters and 24-hour dietary recalls, frequency of foods consumed were determined. Results: Out of total, 54.7% of males and 56.5% of females had normal Body Mass Index-BMI. Using SGA, 49.1% of the patients had serious, 41.8% had moderate degree of malnutrition. According to NRS-2002, percentages of severely, moderately and mildly undernourished patients were 54.6%, 33.6% and 11.8%, respectively. The percentage of patients meeting the recommended daily allowances was 47.2% and 58.1%, respectively for males and females. According to NRS and SGA tools, statistically significant differences with current weight, ideal body weight, usual body weight, percentage of weight loss, BMI, mid-upper arm circumference, triceps skinfold thickness, mid-upper arm muscle area, mid-upper arm muscle circumference and mid-upper arm fat area ( p < 0.05) were found. Nutritional status of patients with SGA and NRS tests showed consistent similarity (κ = 0.671, p < 0.001). Similar changes were found between SGA and NRS scores. Consistency was found statistically significant (r = 0.786 and p =< 0.001). Conclusion: One of the malnutrition screening tools could be preoperatively applied in gastrointestinal system cancer patients. Nutritional support should be planned and administered, when needed.
Rationale: Malnutrition can adversely affect the clinical evolution of hospitalized patients, increasing the incidence of infections, associated diseases and postoperative complications and prolonging the length of stay and hospital costs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of nutritional management to hospitalized patients through a quality indicator. Methods: This study describes the monitoring of the indicator to evaluate the quality of nutritional care in order to facilitate the diagnosis of nutritional disorders and the follow-up of dietary interventions. A database containing information on nutritional markers such as the presence of edema, changes in laboratory tests, altered anthropometric variables (Body Mass Index, Calf Circumference in the elderly over 60 years, Brachial Circumference and Bioelectrical Impedance analysis) has been obtained. Three quality indicators have been monitored: improvement of nutritional status, maintenance of nutritional status and worsening of nutritional status, being monitored every 10 days of hospitalization of each patient at nutritional risk. Results: 7936 patients at nutritional risk have been evaluated between March 2016 and March 2017. From those 677 patients presented improvement in nutritional status, 6.515 maintained nutritional status and 744 worsened their nutritional status. All patients with worsening nutritional status received individualized nutritional interventions to ensure the best therapy for clinical recovery or quality of life. The average nutritional interventions were: 11 enteral/parenteral nutrition therapy adjustments; 5 proteins, lipids and fiber modules introduction; 13 nutritional supplements introduction or adaptation and 10 dietary changes to improve food acceptance. Conclusion: It is paramount to systematically evaluate the nutritional status of patients at nutritional risk for adequate interventions in the prevention and treatment of malnutrition. Reference Kondrup J, Allison SP, Elia M, et al. ESPEN Guidelines for Nutrition Screening 2002. Clin Nutr 2003; 22(4):415–21. Disclosure of Interest: None declared.
Disclosure of Interest: None declared.
MON-LB314 AN EVALUATION OF THE SUGGESTED ESPEN MALNUTRITION CRITERIA IN LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA FOR MALNUTRITION AS PRESENTED IN THE NORWEGIAN NATIONAL GUIDELINES H. K. Brekke1, E. Hoeisaether1, C. Holth1 *. 1University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Rationale: The European society of clinical nutrition and metabolism (ESPEN) recently published a consensus for malnutrition criteria. Our aim was to evaluate the newly suggested ESPEN malnutrition criteria (EMC) in light of the currently used Norwegian national criteria for malnutrition (ICD-10 NO) in cancer patients. Furthermore, we aimed to examine the overlap between the three ESPEN criteria, and whether bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) could replace