ObjectiveTo investigate the status of undernutrition, nutritional risk as well as nutritional support in patients with gastrointestinal tumor. MethodsIn this prospective cohort study, patients with gastrointestinal tumor were recruited from Septemper 2009 to June 2011. Patients were screened by using Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) at admission. Data of the nutritional risk, application of nutritional support, complications, and tumor staging were collected. ResultsNine hundred and sixty-one patients with gastrointestinal tumor were recruited, the overall prevalence of nutritional risk was 38.9% (374/961) at admission, 49.2% （176/358） in gastric tumor and 32.8% （198/603） in colorectal tumor, respectively. The highest prevalence was found in stage Ⅳ gastric tumor 〔87.3% (48/55)〕 and colorectal tumor 〔58.8% (50/85)〕 while the lowest prevalence was found in stage ⅡA gastric tumor 〔16.1% (5/31)〕 and stageⅠcolorectal tumor 〔9.8% (6/61)〕. 62.3% (152/244) of gastric tumor patients with nutritional risk while 48.6% (144/296) without nutritional risk received nutritional support. 37.7% (92/244) of colorectal tumor patients with nutritional risk while 51.4% (152/296) without nutritional risk received nutritional support. The ratio of parental nutrition and enteral nutrition was 1.251. The rate of complications in the gastrointestinal tumor patients with nutritional risk was higher than that in the patients without nutritional risk 〔32.4% (121/374) versus 20.4% (120/587), P=0.000 0〕. For the gastrointestinal tumor patients with nutritional risk, the complication rate of the patients with nutritional support was significantly lower than that of the patients without nutritional support 〔27.5% (67/244) versus 40.8% (53/130), P=0.008 6〕. For the gas trointestinal tumor patients without nutritional risk, the complication rate of gastric tumor patients with nutritional support was significantly lower than that of the patients without nutritional support (P=0.039 6), while the complication rate was not significantly different in the colorectal tumor patients with nutritional support or not (P=0.464 7). ConclusionsPatient with gastrointestinal tumor has a high nutritional risk which is related to tumor staging. Patients with nutritional risk have more complications, and nutritional support is beneficial to the patients with nutritional risk by a lower complication rate.
ObjectiveTo introduce the progresses and applications of nutritional status assessment in hospitalized patients. MethodsThe related literatures of nutritional status assessment were reviewed. ResultsThe rates of malnutrition and nutritional risk were high in hospitalized patients worldwide. Traditional nutrition assessment tools were not in common use in all hospitalized patients. All clinical health care workers should use the most suitable tool when faced with different patients. ConclusionAll hospitalized patients should be screened for nutritional risk on admission in order to improve clinical outcomes and reduce overall treatment costs.
ObjectiveTo evaluate nutritional risk of patients with esophagus cancer before operation using nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002), and explore the relationship between nutritional risk score and postoperative results. MethodsWe prospectively evaluated the nutritional risk of 225 patients with esophagus carcinoma patients who were admitted in Renji Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine between March 2012 and March 2013 using NRS2002, in accordance with disease severity score, nutritional status score and age score(age≥70 years old score was 1 point, < 70 years old for 0 point). There were 136 males and 89 females with age of 64.0±8.2 years (ranged from 41 to 85 years). Postoperative results include postoperative complications, mortality, and length of hospital stay. ResultsThe number of patients with preoperative score≥3 points was 75 (33.3%), < 3 points was 150 (66.7%). The incidence rate of postoperative complications was 26.7% in the patients with NRS2002 score≥3 points, and was 12.0% in those with NRS2002 score < 3 points(P < 0.05). And the total hospital stay time was longer in the patients with NRS2002 score≥3 points than that with NRS2002 score < 3 points(29.80±7.94 d vs. 15.30±2.05 d, P < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis showed that the preoperative NRS2002, the underlying diseases, and surgical method were risk factors for postoperative complications. ConclusionsPreoperative NRS2002 score≥3 points can predict more postoperative complications and longer hospital stay time in patients with esophagus carcinoma. It indicates that scientific nutrition support is necessary for esophagus carcinoma patients with NRS2002 score≥3 points. NRS2002 can be used as a predictive index of nutritional risk after operation of esophagus carcinoma.