Geriatric nutritional risk index predicts all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Dong, Chaohui; Chen, Si-yu; Zeng, Honglian; Yang, Bo; Pan, Jia

doi:10.6061/clinics/2021/e2258

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, patient screening is recommended using the established and validated nutritional screening methods 15 . The MNA‐SF, GNRI, and CONUT scores are representative nutritional screening methods that have been validated in several studies in HF patients 4,5,7,9–11 . The present study suggests that the MNA‐SF score is the most appropriate first choice for nutritional screening of HF patients because it had the highest diagnostic performance for the assessment of nutritional status in accordance with the GLIM criteria in our study ( Figure ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Each patient's nutritional status was assessed by the MNA‐SF, GNRI, and CONUT scores. These nutritional indicators are representative nutritional screening methods that have been validated in several studies in HF patients 4,5,7,9,10 . The MNA‐SF is a simple nutritional screening tool, consisting of six questionnaire items.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, it is important to properly assess the nutritional status of patients with HF, which may lead to appropriate nutritional intervention in malnourished HF patients 4–6 . Although the nutritional assessment of HF patients has not been well established, 7 recent studies have reported that various types of nutritional indicators, such as the mini nutritional assessment‐short form (MNA‐SF), geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), and controlling nutritional status (CONUT) scores, are useful for predicting the prognosis of HF patients 7–11 . However, most reports have only examined the association between these nutritional indicators and prognosis as a surrogate marker of nutritional status 7 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 4 , 5 , 6 Although the nutritional assessment of HF patients has not been well established, 7 recent studies have reported that various types of nutritional indicators, such as the mini nutritional assessment‐short form (MNA‐SF), geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), and controlling nutritional status (CONUT) scores, are useful for predicting the prognosis of HF patients. 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 However, most reports have only examined the association between these nutritional indicators and prognosis as a surrogate marker of nutritional status. 7 Few reports have directly evaluated the association of these nutritional indicators with body composition or physical function, which can both reflect actual nutritional status and its related functional disorders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Diagnostic performance of nutritional indicators in patients with heart failure

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the nutritional indicators, the mini nutritional assessment‐short form (MNA‐SF), the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), and the controlling nutritional status (CONUT), in heart failure (HF) patients. Methods and results Nutritional status was prospectively assessed by the aforementioned three nutritional indicators in 150 outpatients with HF who were then followed for 1 year. The prevalence of patients with the nutritional risk as assessed by the MNA‐SF, GNRI, and CONUT scores was 50.0%, 13.3%, and 54.0%, respectively. There was slight agreement of nutritional risk assessment between the MNA‐SF and GNRI scores (κ coefficient = 0.16), as well as the GNRI and CONUT scores (κ = 0.11), but poor agreement between the MNA‐SF and CONUT scores (κ = −0.09). The CONUT score had the lowest area under the curve (AUC) for the identification of low body weight, low muscle mass, and low physical function among the three indicators (all P < 0.05). Compared with the MNA‐SF score, both the GNRI and CONUT scores had lower AUCs for the identification of reduced dietary intake and weight loss (all P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in predicting all‐cause mortality or HF rehospitalization among the three indicators. The prescription of statins reduced the diagnostic performance of the CONUT score, as the CONUT score includes cholesterol level assessment. Conclusions Of the three indicators, the diagnostic ability of the MNA‐SF score was the highest, and that of the CONUT score was the lowest, for the assessment of HF patient nutritional status. The CONUT score may misrepresent nutritional status, particularly in patients receiving statins.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diagnostic performance of nutritional indicators in patients with heart failure

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A score under 82 represents a high risk of complications, between 82 and 92 points to a moderate risk, and above 92, a low risk. In geriatric patients, this index is associated with complications and outcomes in different types of patients: postoperative patients, patients with heart failure, cancer, and chronic kidney disease, among others [60][61][62][63][64]. Together with the MNA, it is the most widely used index in elderly hospitalized patients [65], and is a useful clinical predictor of a poor six month outcome, although its accuracy of prediction is low [27].…”

Section: Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (Gnri)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Malnutrition Screening and Assessment

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malnutrition is a serious problem with a negative impact on the quality of life and the evolution of patients, contributing to an increase in morbidity, length of hospital stay, mortality, and health spending. Early identification is fundamental to implement the necessary therapeutic actions, involving adequate nutritional support to prevent or reverse malnutrition. This review presents two complementary methods of fighting malnutrition: nutritional screening and nutritional assessment. Nutritional risk screening is conducted using simple, quick-to-perform tools, and is the first line of action in detecting at-risk patients. It should be implemented systematically and periodically on admission to hospital or residential care, as well as on an outpatient basis for patients with chronic conditions. Once patients with a nutritional risk are detected, they should undergo a more detailed nutritional assessment to identify and quantify the type and degree of malnutrition. This should include health history and clinical examination, dietary history, anthropometric measurements, evaluation of the degree of aggression determined by the disease, functional assessment, and, whenever possible, some method of measuring body composition.

show abstract