BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diagnosed prevalence of malnutrition and dietary intake are currently unknown in patients with severe aortic stenosis planned to undergo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). This study describes the preprocedural nutritional status, protein intake and diet quality.METHODS: Consecutive preprocedural TAVI patients were asked to participate in this explorative study. Nutritional status was diagnosed with the global leadership initiative on malnutrition (GLIM) criteria. Preprocedural protein intake and diet quality were assessed with a three-day dietary record. To increase the record's validity, a researcher visited the participants at their homes to confirm the record. Protein intake was reported as an average intake of three days and diet quality was assessed using the Dutch dietary guidelines (score range 0-14, 1 point for adherence to each guideline).RESULTS: Of the included patients (n = 50, median age 80 ± 5, 56% male) 32% (n = 16) were diagnosed with malnutrition. Patients diagnosed with malnutrition had a lower protein intake (1.02 ± 0.28 g/kg/day vs 0.87 ± 0.21 g/kg/day, p = 0.04). The difference in protein intake mainly took place during lunch (20 ± 13 g/kg vs 13 ± 7 g/kg, p = 0.03). Patients adhered to 6.4 ± 2.2 out of 14 dietary guidelines. Adherence to the guideline of whole grains and ratio of whole grains was lower in the group of patients with malnutrition than in patients with normal nutritional status (both 62% vs 19%, p = 0.01). In a multivariate analysis diabetes mellitus was found as an independent predictor of malnutrition.CONCLUSION: Prevalence of malnutrition among TAVI patients is very high up to 32%. Patients with malnutrition had lower protein and whole grain intake than patients with normal nutritional status. Furthermore, we found diabetes mellitus as independent predictor of malnutrition. Nutrition interventions in this older patient group are highly warranted.
DOCUMENT
This study evaluates the concurrent validity of five malnutrition screening tools to identify older hospitalized patients against the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) diagnostic criteria as limited evidence is available. The screening tools Short Nutritional Assessment Questionnaire (SNAQ), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST), Mini Nutritional Assessment—Short Form (MNA-SF), and the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment—Short Form (PG-SGA-SF) with cut-offs for both malnutrition (conservative) and moderate malnutrition or risk of malnutrition (liberal) were used. The concurrent validity was determined by the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and the level of agreement by Cohen’s kappa. In total, 356 patients were included in the analyses (median age 70 y (IQR 63–77); 54% male). The prevalence of malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria without prior screening was 42%. The conservative cut-offs showed a low-to-moderate sensitivity (32–68%) and moderate-to-high specificity (61–98%). The PPV and NPV ranged from 59 to 94% and 67–86%, respectively. The Cohen’s kappa showed poor agreement (k = 0.21–0.59). The liberal cut-offs displayed a moderate-to-high sensitivity (66–89%) and a low-to-high specificity (46–95%). The agreement was fair to good (k = 0.33–0.75). The currently used screening tools vary in their capacity to identify hospitalized older patients with malnutrition. The screening process in the GLIM framework requires further consideration.
DOCUMENT
Malnutrition has a negative impact on quality of life and survival in renal transplant recipients (RTR). Therefore, malnutrition detection is important in RTR, but this may be hampered by concomitant presence of weight gain and overweight. Recently, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) developed a set of diagnostic criteria for malnutrition. We aimed to assess the prevalence of malnutrition according to the GLIM criteria and the distribution of phenotypic criteria in RTR. Additionally, we examined the potential value of 24-h urinary creatinine excretion rate (CER) as alternative measure for the criterion reduced muscle mass.
LINK
Malnutrition is an alarming and ongoing healthcare problem globally. Malnutrition has a negative impact on the individual patient, leading to poorer clinical outcomes and increased mortality, but also poses an economic burden on society. Proper identification and diagnostics are prerequisites for initiation of treatment. In 2019, the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition, a consensus-based global framework to uniformly diagnose malnutrition across populations, healthcare settings, and countries was published. Identifying and treating malnutrition is an interdisciplinary team effort. Nonetheless, the nutrition and dietetics profession is specifically trained for diagnosing and treating nutrition(-related) conditions, and therefore has a key role in the interdisciplinary team in implementing the GLIM framework in clinical practice. For the nutrition and dietetics profession, GLIM offers a great opportunity for moving both the scientific and clinical knowledge of malnutrition management forward. While the GLIM framework has been extensively studied since its launch, various knowledge gaps still remain. For the nutrition and dietetics profession, these knowledge gaps mainly relate to the GLIM implementation process, to the role of GLIM in relation to the nutrition care process, and to treatment strategies for various nutrition-related conditions. In this opinion paper, we aimed to describe the rationale for implementing the GLIM framework in clinical dietetic practice, and propose a research agenda based on knowledge gaps regarding GLIM in relation to nutrition care from a dietetic point of view.
DOCUMENT
Background: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation, and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation. Methods: A GLIM-constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus-based guidance through a modified Delphi review. A multiround review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements. Results: The final round of review was highly favorable, with 99% overall “agree” or “strongly agree” responses. The presence of acute or chronic disease, infection, or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (milligrams per deciliter or milligram per liter) for the clinical laboratory that is being used. Conclusion: Confirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgment based on underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.
DOCUMENT
Background & aims: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) approach to malnutrition diagnosis is based on assessment of three phenotypic (weight loss, low body mass index, and reduced skeletal muscle mass) and two etiologic (reduced food intake/assimilation and disease burden/inflammation) criteria, with diagnosis confirmed by fulfillment of any combination of at least one phenotypic and at least one etiologic criterion. The original GLIM description provided limited guidance regarding assessment of inflammation and this has been a factor impeding further implementation of the GLIM criteria. We now seek to provide practical guidance for assessment of inflammation in support of the etiologic criterion for inflammation. Methods: A GLIM-constituted working group with 36 participants developed consensus-based guidance through a modified-Delphi review. A multi-round review and revision process served to develop seven guidance statements. Results: The final round of review was highly favorable with 99 % overall “agree” or “strongly agree” responses. The presence of acute or chronic disease, infection or injury that is usually associated with inflammatory activity may be used to fulfill the GLIM disease burden/inflammation criterion, without the need for laboratory confirmation. However, we recommend that recognition of underlying medical conditions commonly associated with inflammation be supported by C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements when the contribution of inflammatory components is uncertain. Interpretation of CRP requires that consideration be given to the method, reference values, and units (mg/dL or mg/L) for the clinical laboratory that is being used. Conclusion: Confirmation of inflammation should be guided by clinical judgement based upon underlying diagnosis or condition, clinical signs, or CRP.
DOCUMENT
The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) created a consensus‐based framework consisting of phenotypic and etiologic criteria to record the occurrence of malnutrition in adults. This is a minimum set of practicable indicators for use in characterizing a patient/client as malnourished, considering the global variations in screening and nutrition assessment, and to be used across different healthcare settings. As with other consensus‐based frameworks for diagnosing disease states, these operational criteria require validation and reliability testing, as they are currently based solely on expert opinion.
DOCUMENT
The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) created a consensus‐based framework consisting of phenotypic and etiologic criteria to record the occurrence of malnutrition in adults. This is a minimum set of practicable indicators for use in characterizing a patient/client as malnourished, considering the global variations in screening and nutrition assessment, and to be used across different healthcare settings. As with other consensus‐based frameworks for diagnosing disease states, these operational criteria require validation and reliability testing, as they are currently based solely on expert opinion.
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the shifts in society, healthcare and the profile of the malnourished individual, a re-consideration of the goal of nutritional risk screening is needed: screening for malnutrition, or screening for risk of malnutrition? In this review article, we reflect on the role of nutritional risk screening in relation to prevention and treatment of malnutrition.RECENT FINDINGS: Within the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) Initiative, modified Delphi studies are currently being conducted to reach global consensus on the conceptual definition and operationalization of 'risk of malnutrition'. This is necessary because various studies have demonstrated that different nutritional screening tools identify different individuals, due to variability in screening tool criteria, which influences GLIM outcomes. Upon screening, three different situations can be distinguished: having risk factors for malnutrition without clear signs of presence of malnutrition, having mild signs of malnutrition (malnutrition in progress), or having obvious signs of malnutrition.SUMMARY: The outcomes of the studies on 'risk of malnutrition' will guide the screening step within the GLIM process, and will help professionals to make informed choices regarding screening policy and screening tool(s).
DOCUMENT
