Prognostic value of simple frailty and malnutrition screening tools in patients with acute heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction

Background: Frailty and malnutrition are common in patients with heart failure (HF), and are associated with adverse outcomes. We studied the prognostic value of three malnutrition and three frailty indices in patients admitted acutely to hospital with HF. Methods: 265 consecutive patients [62% males, median age 80 (interquartile range (IQR): 72–86) years, median NTproBNP 3633 (IQR: 2025–6407) ng/l] admitted with HF between 2013 and 2014 were enrolled. Patients were screened for frailty using the Derby frailty index (DFI), acute frailty network (AFN) frailty criteria, and clinical frailty scale (CFS) and for malnutrition using the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score and prognostic nutritional index (PNI). Results: According to the CFS (> 4), DFI, and AFN, 53, 50, and 53% were frail, respectively. According to the GNRI (≤ 98), CONUT score (> 4), and PNI (≤ 38), 46, 46, and 42% patients were malnourished, respectively. During a median follow-up of 598 days (IQR 319–807 days), 113 patients died. One year mortality was 1% for those who were neither frail nor malnourished; 15% for those who were either malnourished or frail; and 65% for those who were both malnourished and frail. Amongst the malnutrition scores, PNI, and amongst the frailty scores, CFS increased model performance most compared with base model. A final model, including CFS and PNI, increased c-statistic for mortality prediction from 0.68 to 0.84. Conclusion: Worsening frailty and malnutrition indices are strongly related to worse outcome in patients hospitalised with HF

Resting energy expenditure in morbid obesity

Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured in 112 morbidly obese adults prior to elective gastric bypass surgery. The patients studied ranged from 157 to 327% of ideal body weight. Standard nutritional assessment indices (serum total protein, albumin, total iron binding capacity, hematocrit, and white blood cell count) were within normal limits. REE was estimated by the Harris-Benedict formula using both current weight and ideal weight. Measured REE was significantly less than expected (p < 0.01) using current weight and significantly greater than expected (p < 0.01) when ideal weight was used as the standard. Linear regression analysis between standard indices that reflect resting metabolic rate in normal adults and measured REE in study patients did not demonstrate sufficient correlation to be clinically useful in this patient population. Standard surgical therapy may result in highly variable weight loss in this population if the wide range of resting energy expenditure and the consequential variability in individual caloric deficits is not considered. Standard predictors do not identify those patients likely to be unsuccessful with a given weight loss regimen

Role of nutritional status and intervention in oesophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy:outcomes from SCOPE1

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is common in oesophageal cancer. We aimed to identify nutritional prognostic factors and survival outcomes associated with nutritional intervention in the SCOPE1 (Study of Chemoradiotherapy in OesoPhageal Cancer with or without Erbitux) trial. METHODS: Two hundred and fifty eight patients were randomly allocated to definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) +/− cetuximab. Nutritional Risk Index (NRI) scores were calculated; NRI<100 identified patients at risk of malnutrition. Nutritional intervention included dietary advice, oral supplementation or major intervention (enteral feeding/tube placement). Univariable and multivariable analyses using Cox proportional hazard modelling were conducted. RESULTS: At baseline NRI<100 strongly predicted for reduced overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 12.45, 95% CI 5.24–29.57; P<0.001). Nutritional intervention improved survival if provided at baseline (dietary advice (HR 0.12, P=0.004), oral supplementation (HR 0.13, P<0.001) or major intervention (HR 0.13, P=0.003)), but not if provided later in the treatment course. Cetuximab patients receiving major nutritional intervention had worse outcomes compared with controls (13 vs 28 months, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment assessment and correction of malnutrition may improve survival outcomes in oesophageal cancer patients treated with dCRT. Nutritional Risk Index is a simple and objective screening tool to identify patients at risk of malnutrition