Applicability of three nutritional screening tools in patients with liver cirrhosis under the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria
WU Yingke,LI Man,CHEN Chen,ZHANG Yichao,SU Yang,WANG Weixing
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.02.019
2022-01-01
Abstract:ObjectiveTo investigate whether Royal Free Hospital Nutritional Prioritizing Tool (RFH-NPT) is more suitable than Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) in nutritional risk screening for patients with liver cirrhosis, as well as the applicability of subjective global assessment (SGA) in the nutritional assessment of patients with liver cirrhosis. MethodsA total of 113 patients with liver cirrhosis who were hospitalized in Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from August 2020 to June 2021 were enrolled. RFH-NPT and NRS-2002 were used for nutritional risk screening, and SGA was used for nutritional assessment. The results of these tools were compared with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for the three tools. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated for each screening tool, and the association between nutritional status and short-term prognosis was analyzed. The independent samples t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups, and the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. The Spearman correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation of GLIM criteria with NRS2002, RFH-NPT and SGA. ResultsAccording to the GLIM criteria, 69.9% of the patients were diagnosed with malnutrition, and RFH-NPT and NRS2002 screened out that 72.6% and 51.3%, respectively, of the patients had nutritional risk, while SGA assessment showed that 57.5% of the patients had malnutrition. Compared with NRS2002, RFH-NPT had a higher degree of correlation with the GLIM criteria (r=0.764, P＜0.001), higher sensitivity (94.9%) and NPV (871%), and a better predictive value (AUC=0.872, 95% confidence interval ［CI］: 0.786-0.957). Under the GLIM criteria, SGA had good specificity (88.2%) in the diagnosis of malnutrition in patients with liver cirrhosis, with fair sensitivity (77.2%), good correlation (r=0607, P＜0.001), and good predictive value (AUC=0.827, 95%CI: 0.744-0.911). Based on the GLIM criteria, SGA assessment, and RFH-NPT assessment, the patients with nutritional risk or malnutrition tended to have a longer length of hospital stay (Z=-3.301, -2.812, and -3.813, all P＜0.05) and a higher rehospitalization rate (χ2=3.957, 6.922, and 6.766, all P＜0.05). Based on the GLIM criteria and NRS2002 assessment, the patients with nutritional risk or malnutrition had a significant increase in mortality rate within 3 months (χ2=4.511 and 0.776, both P＜0.05). ConclusionUnder the GLIM criteria, RFH-NPT is more suitable than NRS2002 for nutritional risk screening of patients with liver cirrhosis, and SGA also has good applicability in nutritional assessment of patients with liver cirrhosis. In addition, GLIM criteria, SGA, and RFH-NPT are associated with the clinical outcome of patients.