IntroductionNutritional screening is a fundamental aspect of the initial evaluation of the hospitalised patient. Body Mass Index (BMI) in association with other parameters is a good marker of malnutrition (<18.5 kg/m2), but it presents the handicap that the great majority of patients cannot be weighed and measured. For this reason it is necessary to find other indicators that can be measured in these patients.Objectives1) Analyse the relationship between BMI and Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC); 2) establish a cut-off point of MUAC equivalent to BMI <18.5 kg/m2.Materials and MethodsThe anthropometric data of patients hospitalised over the period 2004–2013 were retrospectively revised. The following variables were collected: weight, height, BMI, MUAC, sex and age.Results1373 patients were evaluated, who presented a mean weight of: 65.04±15.51 kg; height: 1.66±0.09 m; BMI: 23.48±5.03 kg/m2; MUAC: 26.95±4.50 cm; age: 56.24±16.77. MUAC correlates suitably to BMI by means of the following equation (simple linear regression): BMI = − 0.042 + 0.873 x MUAC (cm) (R2 = 0.609), with a Pearson r value of 0.78 (p<0.001). The area under the curve of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.94; p<0.001). The MUAC value ≤22.5 cm presented a sensitivity of 67.7%, specificity of 94.5%, and a correct classification of 90%. No significant statistical differences were found in the cut-off point of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition based on sex (p = 0.115) and age (p = 0.694).Conclusions1) MUAC correlates positively and significantly with BMI. 2) MUAC ≤ 22.5 cm correlates properly with a BMI of <18.5 kg/m2, independent of the age or sex of the patient, although there are other alternatives. MUAC constitutes a useful tool as a marker of malnutrition, fundamentally in patients for whom weight and height cannot be determined.

BackgroundMalnutrition is highly prevalent in hospitalized patients and results in a worsened clinical course as well as an increased length of stay, mortality, and costs. Therefore, simple nutrition screening systems, such as CIPA (control of food intake, protein, anthropometry), may be implemented to facilitate the patient’s recovery process. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing such screening tool in a tertiary hospital, consistent with the lack of similar, published studies on any hospital nutrition screening system.MethodsThe present study is carried out as an open, controlled, randomized study on patients that were admitted to the Internal Medicine and the General and Digestive Surgery ward; the patients were randomized to either a control or an intervention group (n = 824, thereof 412 patients in each of the two study arms). The control group underwent usual inpatient clinical care, while the intervention group was evaluated with the CIPA screening tool for early detection of malnutrition and treated accordingly.CIPA nutrition screening was performed upon hospital admission and classified positive when at least one of the following parameters was met: 72 h food intake control < 50%, serum albumin < 3 g/dL, body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (or mid-upper arm circumference ≤ 22.5 cm). In this case, the doctor decided on whether or not providing nutrition support.The following variables will be evaluated: hospital length of stay (primary endpoint), mortality, 3-month readmission, and in-hospital complications. Likewise, the quality of life questionnaires EQ-5D-5 L are being collected for all patients at hospital admission, discharge, and 3 months post-discharge. Analysis of cost-effectiveness will be performed by measuring effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost per patient will be established by identifying health care resource utilization; cost-effectiveness will be determined through the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We will calculate the incremental cost per QALY gained with respect to the intervention.DiscussionThis ongoing trial aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing the malnutrition screening tool CIPA in a tertiary hospital.Trial registrationClinical Trial.gov (NCT02721706).First receivevd: March 1, 2016Last updated: April 8, 2017Last verified: April 2017

No abstract

A b s t r a c t Introduction: Hospital malnutrition is very common and worsens the clinical course of patients while increasing costs. Lacking clinical-economic studies on the implementation of nutrition screening encouraged the evaluation of the CIPA (Control of Food Intake, Protein, Anthropometry) tool. Material and methods: An open, non-randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted on patients admitted to internal medicine and general and digestive surgery wards, who were either assigned to a control (standard hospital clinical care) or to an intervention, CIPA-performing ward (412 and 411, respectively; n = 823). Length of stay, mortality, readmission, in-hospital complications, and quality of life were evaluated. Cost-effectiveness was analysed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: The mean length of stay was higher in the CIPA group, though not significantly (+ 0.95 days; p = 0.230). On the surgical ward, more patients from the control group moved to critical care units (p = 0.014); the other clinical variables did not vary. Quality of life at discharge was similar (p = 0.53), although slightly higher in the CIPA group at 3 months (p = 0.089). Patients under CIPA screening had a higher mean cost of € 691.6 and a mean QALY gain over a 3-month period of 0.0042. While the cost per QALY for the internal medicine patients was € 642 282, the results for surgical patients suggest that the screening tool is both less costly and more effective. Conclusions: The CIPA nutrition screening tool is likely to be cost-effective in surgical but not in internal medicine patients.

IntroductionThere is no gold-standard method for hospital nutrition screening. The new screening tool termed Control of Food Intake, Protein, and Anthropometry (CIPA) gives positive results when at least one of the following parameters is met: control of food intake for 72 h < 50%, serum albumin < 3 g/dl, body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 or mid-upper arm circumference ≤ 22.5 cm. This method was validated in comparison with Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in hospitalized patients with non-surgical pathologies.Material and methodsA prospective, longitudinal study was performed on 221 consecutively enrolled patients. Prevalence or risk of malnutrition was estimated with CIPA vs. SGA screening at hospital admission and the concordance (k index – K) between the two methods and their sensitivity (S) and specificity (SP) were studied. Mean length of stay (LOS), mortality, and rate of early readmission were analyzed.ResultsThe prevalence or risk of malnutrition identified by CIPA and SGA was 35.7% and 23.1%, respectively. K was 0.401 (p < 0.001); S and SP of CIPA vs. SGA were 72.5% and 75.3%, respectively. In contrast to SGA, CIPA-positive patients had an increased mean LOS compared to the negative ones (19.53 vs. 12.63 days, p < 0.001). Both methods detected a major risk of mortality in positive patients, but no difference in early readmission.ConclusionsThe CIPA and the SGA screening tools detect patients with a higher risk of mortality, but only CIPA identifies patients with an increased mean LOS. CIPA screening proved valid for use in non-surgical inpatients.