These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Optimisation of nutritional screening tool CIPA: are two parameters of protein really necessary?].
    Author: Mendoza AM, Suárez Llanos JP, Delgado Brito I, Pereyra-García Castro F, López Travieso R, Pérez Delgado N, García Núñez MA, Benítez Brito N, Palacio Abizanda E.
    Journal: Nutr Hosp; 2018 Aug 02; 35(4):914-919. PubMed ID: 30070882.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: the preliminary nutritional screening tool CIPA (food intake, proteins, anthropometry) is positive when it fulfills one of the following: control food intake (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albumin < 3 g/dl, total protein < 5 g/dl, body mass index (BMI) < 18,5 kg/m2 or mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) ≤ 22,5 cm. The use of two protein parameters increases costs and difficulty; one of them can be suppressed without affecting validity. OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the effectiveness of screening CIPA after exclusion of total protein. METHOD: prospective study of hospitalized patients; prevalence or risk of malnutrition was evaluated through CIPA and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA). Hospital malnutrition according to complete CIPA screening (with total proteins and albumin, [CIPAc] and without total proteins [CIPAw/p]) and concordance between both methods were analyzed, as well as the association of the positive screening result with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: three hundred and forty-three patients were analyzed. The prevalence or risk of malnutrition identified by complete CIPA (c) was 38.19% (33.02-43.36); by CIPA without protein (w/p), 37.32% (32.17-42.46); and SGA was 29.15% (24.32-33.99). Kappa index: 0.981 between both CIPAs, p < 0.001. Both CIPA and SGA detect patients with higher mortality in hospital and one month after discharge. Early readmission was higher in positive CIPA, statistical significantly in CIPAw/p (screening with positive results 21.88% vs screening with negative results 13.49%, p = 0.044), SGA 20.01% vs 15.23%, p = 0.28. Length of stay was higher in patients with positive screening in CIPAc, CIPAw/p and SGA. CONCLUSIONS: CIPAw/p is equally or more effective than the previously validated full CIPA; therefore, it could replace the latter saving costs. The prevalence of malnutrition is high in both variants and they are able to predict which patient has worse clinical prognosis. Introducción: el cribado nutricional CIPA (control de ingestas, proteínas, antropometría) preliminar es positivo cuando se cumple uno de los siguientes parámetros: control de ingestas (CI) 48-72 h < 50%, albúmina < 3 g/dl, proteínas totales < 5 g/dl, índice de masa corporal (IMC) < 18,5 kg/m2 o circunferencia del brazo (CB) ≤ 22,5 cm (cuando el paciente no se puede pesar/tallar). El uso de dos parámetros proteicos aumenta costes y complejidad, pudiendo suprimirse uno de ellos sin afectar su validez.Objetivos: evaluar la efectividad del cribado CIPA tras exclusión de proteínas totales.Métodos: estudio prospectivo de pacientes hospitalizados valorando prevalencia o riesgo de desnutrición a través de CIPA y valoración global subjetiva (VGS). Análisis de desnutrición hospitalaria según el cribado CIPA completo (con proteínas totales y albúmina, CIPAc) y sin proteínas totales (CIPAs/p), y análisis de la concordancia entre ambos métodos. Estudio de la asociación del resultado positivo del cribado con factores pronósticos.Resultados: se analizaron 343 pacientes. Prevalencia de desnutrición: CIPAc 38,19% (33,02-43,36), CIPAs/p 37,32% (32,17-42,46), VGS 29,15% (24,32-33,99). Índice de correlación Kappa: 0,981 entre ambos CIPA, p < 0,001. Tanto las dos versiones de CIPA como la VGS detectan pacientes con mayor mortalidad hospitalaria y al mes del alta. Reingreso precoz: mayor en CIPA positivo, estadísticamente significativo en CIPAs/p (cribado positivo 21,88% vs. negativo 13,49%, p = 0,044), VGS 20,01% vs. 15,23%, p = 0,28. Estancia media: superior en pacientes con cribado positivo en las dos variantes de CIPA y en VGS.Conclusiones: CIPAs/p es igual o más eficaz que CIPAc validado previamente, por lo que puede sustituir a este último ahorrando costes. La prevalencia de desnutrición es elevada en ambas variantes y son capaces de identificar al paciente con peor pronóstico clínico.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]