Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools

Xiong-Huai Hua; Ke-Feng Shi; Yong-Kui Yu; Hao-Miao Li; Fei Ma; Hai-Bo Sun; Ru-Lin Qian; Yin Li

doi:10.21037/atm-21-6383

Nutritional assessment in esophageal fast-track surgery: comparisons of 4 objective malnutrition screening tools

Ann Transl Med. 2022 Jan;10(1):20. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-6383.

Authors

Xiong-Huai Hua¹, Ke-Feng Shi¹, Yong-Kui Yu², Hao-Miao Li², Fei Ma³, Hai-Bo Sun², Ru-Lin Qian¹, Yin Li⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Thoracic Surgery, Henan Chest Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
² Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
³ Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
⁴ Department of Thoracic Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

Abstract

Background: This cohort study aimed to compare the performance of the 2015 diagnostic criteria for malnutrition of the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS 2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Short-Form of Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA-SF) in detecting malnutrition risk and predicting postoperative complications and the failure of early oral feeding (EOF) programs in esophageal cancer patients.

Methods: The 4 tools were used to conduct malnutrition assessments before surgery. The patients were divided into the groups of severe malnutrition and mild/moderate malnutrition and the incidences of the endpoints were observed. Multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted.

Results: Two hundred and nineteen consecutive esophageal cancer patients were included in the study. The prevalence rates of severe malnutrition as determined by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, NRS 2002, and MNA-SF were 24.7%, 29.7%, 23.7%, and 16.0%, respectively. The moderate/severe malnutrition risk screened by the MUST had a high sensitivity (100.0%) with malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria. In total, 42 (19.2%) patients experienced major complications, and the incidence rate of EOF failure was 7.3%. The severe malnutrition identified by the ESPEN 2015 criteria, MUST, and NRS 2002 were comparable in predicting the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, anastomotic leakage, readmission to intensive care units (ICUs), and EOF failure, but the ESPEN 2015 criteria was better in predicting postoperative overall complications, major complications, and delayed hospital discharge.

Conclusions: The ESPEN 2015 criteria specializes in identifying severe malnutrition and is better in predicting adverse surgical outcomes; however, the MUST and NRS 2002 are better superior in detecting early malnutrition and are also valuable in the perioperative management in esophageal surgery. It is recommended that the MUST be used as the malnutrition screening tool before the ESPEN 2015 criteria is applied.

Keywords: Early oral feeding (EOF); esophageal neoplasm; esophagectomy; malnutrition; postoperative complications.