Page 129 - Petelin, Ana, and Šarabon, Nejc. 2018. Eds. Zdravje starostnikov / Health of the Elderly. Znanstvena monografija / Proceedings. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 129
ure 1: Results of nutritional screening with NRS-2002.
Table 2: Number of patients within BMI, FFMI, HGS and PA cut-off points
for malnutrition.
Inside cut-off points nutritional status of older adults admitted to the surgical ward 129
increased nutritional risk (N = 39) low nutritional risk (N= 28) P
malnourished 0.667
0.075
n (%) Mean (SD) n (%) Mean (SD) 0.040
5 (100) 20.1 (1.2) /
BMI (kg/m2)
FFMI (kg/m2) 13 (81) 14.4 (1.6) 3 (19) 14.9 (0.2)
HGS (kg)
PA (°) 23 (70) 17.4 (5.2) 10 (30) 21.4 (6.7)
29 (67) 3.7 (0.8) 14 (33) 4.2 (0.7)
SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; FFMI, free fat mass index; HGS, hand-grip
strength; PA, phase angle.
Discussion
In our sample, 39 (58 %) patients were screened positive by NRS-2002 of which
34 (87 %) patients with the age ≥ 70 years. The majority of patients achieved a
total of 3 points (Figure 1) of which 30 (86 %) with the age ≥ 70 years. There were
significant differences in age according to the patients’ nutritional status deter-
mined by the NRS-2002 (P = 0.009) (Table 1). Because NRS-2002 contains an
additional point for the adults with the age ≥ 70 years this directly impacts on
the final sum of points and on the determination of patients’ nutritional status
(≤ 2 or ≥ 3 points).
The mean BMI in the group with INR was 27.4 ± 4.7 kg/m2 with signifi-
cant statistical difference with BMI in LNR (P = 0,024). 34 (87 %) patients with
INR had BMI > 22 kg/m2 of which 28 had BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 at their admission
to the hospital, which causes concerns. If we had used only the cut-off points of
BMI (≤ 20 kg/m2 or ≤ 22 kg/m2) for screening of malnutrition at the admission,
only 5 (8 %) patients would be classified as malnourished, which is less than
one quarter comparing to the results of NRS-2002. This indicates the need for
screening patients at the hospital admission with screening tools, since the dis-
Table 2: Number of patients within BMI, FFMI, HGS and PA cut-off points
for malnutrition.
Inside cut-off points nutritional status of older adults admitted to the surgical ward 129
increased nutritional risk (N = 39) low nutritional risk (N= 28) P
malnourished 0.667
0.075
n (%) Mean (SD) n (%) Mean (SD) 0.040
5 (100) 20.1 (1.2) /
BMI (kg/m2)
FFMI (kg/m2) 13 (81) 14.4 (1.6) 3 (19) 14.9 (0.2)
HGS (kg)
PA (°) 23 (70) 17.4 (5.2) 10 (30) 21.4 (6.7)
29 (67) 3.7 (0.8) 14 (33) 4.2 (0.7)
SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index; FFMI, free fat mass index; HGS, hand-grip
strength; PA, phase angle.
Discussion
In our sample, 39 (58 %) patients were screened positive by NRS-2002 of which
34 (87 %) patients with the age ≥ 70 years. The majority of patients achieved a
total of 3 points (Figure 1) of which 30 (86 %) with the age ≥ 70 years. There were
significant differences in age according to the patients’ nutritional status deter-
mined by the NRS-2002 (P = 0.009) (Table 1). Because NRS-2002 contains an
additional point for the adults with the age ≥ 70 years this directly impacts on
the final sum of points and on the determination of patients’ nutritional status
(≤ 2 or ≥ 3 points).
The mean BMI in the group with INR was 27.4 ± 4.7 kg/m2 with signifi-
cant statistical difference with BMI in LNR (P = 0,024). 34 (87 %) patients with
INR had BMI > 22 kg/m2 of which 28 had BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 at their admission
to the hospital, which causes concerns. If we had used only the cut-off points of
BMI (≤ 20 kg/m2 or ≤ 22 kg/m2) for screening of malnutrition at the admission,
only 5 (8 %) patients would be classified as malnourished, which is less than
one quarter comparing to the results of NRS-2002. This indicates the need for
screening patients at the hospital admission with screening tools, since the dis-
