Hua Xiong-Huai, Shi Ke-Feng, Yu Yong-Kui, Li Hao-Miao, Ma Fei, Sun Hai-Bo, Qian Ru-Lin, Li Yin
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Henan Chest Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Ann Transl Med. 2022 Jan;10(1):20. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-6383.
This cohort study aimed to compare the performance of the 2015 diagnostic criteria for malnutrition of the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Short-Form of Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF) in detecting malnutrition risk and predicting postoperative complications and the failure of early oral feeding (EOF) programs in esophageal cancer patients.
The 4 tools were used to conduct malnutrition assessments before surgery. The patients were divided into the groups of severe malnutrition and mild/moderate malnutrition and the incidences of the endpoints were observed. Multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted.
Two hundred and nineteen consecutive esophageal cancer patients were included in the study. The prevalence rates of severe malnutrition as determined by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, NRS 2002, and MNA-SF were 24.7%, 29.7%, 23.7%, and 16.0%, respectively. The moderate/severe malnutrition risk screened by the MUST had a high sensitivity (100.0%) with malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria. In total, 42 (19.2%) patients experienced major complications, and the incidence rate of EOF failure was 7.3%. The severe malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, and NRS 2002 were comparable in predicting the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage, readmission to intensive care units (ICUs), and EOF failure, but the ESPEN 2015 criteria was better in predicting postoperative overall complications, major complications, and delayed hospital discharge.
The ESPEN 2015 criteria specializes in identifying severe malnutrition and is better in predicting adverse surgical outcomes; however, the MUST and NRS 2002 are better superior in detecting early malnutrition and are also valuable in the perioperative management in esophageal surgery. It is recommended that the MUST be used as the malnutrition screening tool before the ESPEN 2015 criteria is applied.
本队列研究旨在比较欧洲临床营养与代谢学会(ESPEN)2015年营养不良诊断标准、营养风险筛查2002(NRS 2002)、营养不良通用筛查工具(MUST)和微型营养评定简表(MNA-SF)在检测食管癌患者营养不良风险、预测术后并发症及早期经口进食(EOF)计划失败方面的表现。
使用这4种工具在手术前进行营养不良评估。将患者分为重度营养不良组和轻度/中度营养不良组,并观察终点事件的发生率。进行多变量逻辑回归和受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析。
本研究纳入了219例连续的食管癌患者。根据ESPEN 2015标准、MUST、NRS 2002和MNA-SF确定的重度营养不良患病率分别为24.7%、29.7%、23.7%和16.0%。MUST筛查出的中度/重度营养不良风险对ESPEN 2015标准确定的营养不良具有较高的敏感性(100.0%)。共有42例(19.2%)患者发生了主要并发症,EOF失败的发生率为7.3%。ESPEN 2015标准、MUST和NRS 2002确定的重度营养不良在预测术后肺部并发症、吻合口漏、再次入住重症监护病房(ICU)和EOF失败的发生率方面相当,但ESPEN 2015标准在预测术后总体并发症、主要并发症和延迟出院方面更好。
ESPEN 2015标准专门用于识别重度营养不良,在预测不良手术结局方面更好;然而,MUST和NRS 2002在检测早期营养不良方面更具优势,在食管癌手术的围手术期管理中也很有价值。建议在应用ESPEN 2015标准之前,将MUST用作营养不良筛查工具。