Assessing Malnutrition Before Major Oncologic Surgery: One Size Does Not Fit All.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 230(4):451-460, 2020 04.PMID: 32113029Institution: MedStar Health Research InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Malnutrition/di [Diagnosis] | *Neoplasms/su [Surgery] | *Postoperative Complications/ep [Epidemiology] | Aged | Female | Humans | Male | Malnutrition/co [Complications] | Middle Aged | Nutritional Status | Postoperative Complications/et [Etiology] | Preoperative PeriodYear: 2020Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1997 - present, Available in print through MWHC library:1999-2007ISSN:
  • 1072-7515
Name of journal: Journal of the American College of SurgeonsAbstract: BACKGROUND: There are multiple definitions for malnutrition, without evidence of superiority of any one definition to assess preoperative risk. Therefore, to aid in identification of patients that might warrant prehabilitation, we aimed to determine the optimal definition of malnutrition before major oncologic resection for 6 cancer types.CONCLUSIONS: The definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk is specific to the type of cancer being treated. These findings can be used to enhance nutritional preparedness in the preoperative setting. Copyright (c) 2020 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.METHODS: The American College of Surgeons NSQIP database was queried for patients undergoing elective major oncologic operations from 2005 to 2017. Nutritional status was evaluated using the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition definitions, NSQIP's variable for >10% weight loss during the previous 6 months, and the WHO BMI classification system. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the adjusted effect of nutritional status on mortality and major morbidity.RESULTS: We identified 205,840 operations (74% colorectal, 10% pancreatic, 9% lung, 3% gastric, 3% esophageal, and 2% liver). A minority (16%) of patients met criteria for malnutrition (0.6% severe malnutrition, 1% European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 1, 2% European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 2, 6% NSQIP, and 6% mild malnutrition), 31% were obese, and the remaining 54% had a normal nutrition status. Both mortality and major morbidity varied significantly between the nutrition groups (both p < 0.0001). An interaction between nutritional status and cancer type was observed in the models for mortality and major morbidity (interaction term p < 0.0001 for both), indicating the optimal definition of malnutrition varied by cancer type.All authors: Al-Refaie WB, Bews KA, Cima RR, Colibaseanu DT, Habermann EB, McKenna NP, Pemberton JHOriginally published: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 230(4):451-460, 2020 Apr.Fiscal year: FY2020Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2020-07-09
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 32113029 Available 32113029

Available online from MWHC library: 1997 - present, Available in print through MWHC library:1999-2007

BACKGROUND: There are multiple definitions for malnutrition, without evidence of superiority of any one definition to assess preoperative risk. Therefore, to aid in identification of patients that might warrant prehabilitation, we aimed to determine the optimal definition of malnutrition before major oncologic resection for 6 cancer types.

CONCLUSIONS: The definition of malnutrition used to assess postoperative risk is specific to the type of cancer being treated. These findings can be used to enhance nutritional preparedness in the preoperative setting. Copyright (c) 2020 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

METHODS: The American College of Surgeons NSQIP database was queried for patients undergoing elective major oncologic operations from 2005 to 2017. Nutritional status was evaluated using the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition definitions, NSQIP's variable for >10% weight loss during the previous 6 months, and the WHO BMI classification system. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the adjusted effect of nutritional status on mortality and major morbidity.

RESULTS: We identified 205,840 operations (74% colorectal, 10% pancreatic, 9% lung, 3% gastric, 3% esophageal, and 2% liver). A minority (16%) of patients met criteria for malnutrition (0.6% severe malnutrition, 1% European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 1, 2% European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 2, 6% NSQIP, and 6% mild malnutrition), 31% were obese, and the remaining 54% had a normal nutrition status. Both mortality and major morbidity varied significantly between the nutrition groups (both p < 0.0001). An interaction between nutritional status and cancer type was observed in the models for mortality and major morbidity (interaction term p < 0.0001 for both), indicating the optimal definition of malnutrition varied by cancer type.

English

Powered by Koha