Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Royal Adelaide Hospital, South Australia, Australia.
Intensive Care Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, South Australia, Australia; Discipline of Acute Care Medicine, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Centre of Research Excellence in Translating Nutritional Science to Good Health, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Aust Crit Care. 2022 Mar;35(2):153-158. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.03.004. Epub 2021 May 13.
Malnutrition rates for critically ill patients being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are reported to range from 38% to 78%. Malnutrition in the ICU is associated with increased mortality, morbidity, length of hospital admission, and ICU readmission rates. The high volume of ICU admissions means that efficient screening processes to identify patients at nutritional or malnutrition risk are imperative to appropriately prioritise nutrition intervention. As the proportion of noninvasively mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU increases, the feasibility of using nutrition risk screening tools in this population needs to be established.
The aim of this study was to compare the feasibility of using the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) with the modified NUtriTion Risk In the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score for identifying patients at nutritional or malnutrition risk in this population.
A single-centre, prospective, descriptive, feasibility study was conducted. The MUST and mNUTRIC tool were completed within 24 h of ICU admission in a convenience sample of noninvasively mechanically ventilated adult patients (≥18 years) by a trained allied health assistant. The number (n) of eligible patients screened, time to complete screening (minutes), and barriers to completion were documented. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation), and the independent samples t-test was used for comparisons between tools.
Twenty patients were included (60% men; aged 65.3 [13.9] years). Screening using the MUST took a significantly shorter time to complete than screening using the mNUTRIC tool (8.1 [2.8] vs 22.1 [5.6] minutes; p = 0.001). Barriers to completion included obtaining accurate weight history for the MUST and time taken for collection of information and overall training requirements to perform mNUTRIC.
The MUST took less time and had fewer barriers to completion than mNUTRIC. The MUST may be the more feasible nutrition risk screening tool for use in noninvasively mechanically ventilated critically ill adults.
据报道,入住重症监护病房(ICU)的危重症患者的营养不良率为 38%至 78%。ICU 中的营养不良与死亡率、发病率、住院时间和 ICU 再入院率增加有关。由于 ICU 患者人数众多,因此需要有效的筛选程序来识别有营养或营养不良风险的患者,以便对营养干预措施进行适当的优先排序。随着 ICU 中接受非侵入性机械通气的患者比例增加,需要确定在该人群中使用营养风险筛查工具的可行性。
本研究旨在比较使用营养不良通用筛查工具(MUST)与改良的危重患者营养风险指数(mNUTRIC)评分识别该人群中存在营养或营养不良风险的患者的可行性。
进行了一项单中心、前瞻性、描述性可行性研究。在 24 小时内,由经过培训的医疗助理对便利样本中的接受非侵入性机械通气的成年患者(≥18 岁)进行 MUST 和 mNUTRIC 工具评估。记录筛选的合格患者数量(n)、完成筛选的时间(分钟)和完成筛选的障碍。数据以平均值(标准差)表示,使用独立样本 t 检验比较两种工具。
共纳入 20 例患者(60%为男性;年龄 65.3 [13.9] 岁)。使用 MUST 进行筛查的完成时间明显短于使用 mNUTRIC 工具(8.1 [2.8] 分钟 vs 22.1 [5.6] 分钟;p=0.001)。完成筛选的障碍包括获取 MUST 所需的准确体重史,以及收集信息和完成 mNUTRIC 评分所需的时间和总体培训要求。
MUST 比 mNUTRIC 完成时间更短,完成障碍更少。MUST 可能是更适合用于非侵入性机械通气的危重症成年患者的营养风险筛查工具。