Perioperative nutrition is still a surgical orphan: results of a Swiss-Austrian survey.

Background/Objectives:There is strong evidence for the beneficial effects of perioperative nutrition in patients undergoing major surgery. We aimed to evaluate implementation of current guidelines in Switzerland and Austria.Subjects/Methods:A survey was conducted in 173 Swiss and Austrian surgical departments. We inquired about nutritional screening, perioperative nutrition and estimated clinical significance.Results:The overall response rate was 55%, having 69% (54/78) responders in Switzerland and 44% (42/95) in Austria. Most centres were aware of reduced complications (80%) and shorter hospital stay (59%). However, only 20% of them implemented routine nutritional screening. Non-compliance was because of financial (49%) and logistic restrictions (33%). Screening was mainly performed in the outpatient's clinic (52%) or during admission (54%). The nutritional risk score was applied by 14% only; instead, various clinical (78%) and laboratory parameters (56%) were used. Indication for perioperative nutrition was based on preoperative screening in 49%. Although 23% used preoperative nutrition, 68% applied nutritional support pre- and postoperatively. Preoperative nutritional treatment ranged from 3 days (33%), to 5 (31%) and even 7 days (20%).Conclusions:Although malnutrition is a well-recognised risk factor for poor post-operative outcome, surgeons remain reluctant to implement routine screening and nutritional support according to evidence-based guidelines.

Perioperative nutrition in abdominal surgery: recommendations and reality.

Introduction. Preoperative malnutrition is a major risk factor for increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Definition and diagnosis of malnutrition and its treatment is still subject for controversy. Furthermore, practical implementation of nutrition-related guidelines is unknown. Methods. A review of the available literature and of current guidelines on perioperative nutrition was conducted. We focused on nutritional screening and perioperative nutrition in patients undergoing digestive surgery, and we assessed translation of recent guidelines in clinical practice. Results and Conclusions. Malnutrition is a well-recognized risk factor for poor postoperative outcome. The prevalence of malnutrition depends largely on its definition; about 40% of patients undergoing major surgery fulfil current diagnostic criteria of being at nutritional risk. The Nutritional Risk Score is a pragmatic and validated tool to identify patients who should benefit from nutritional support. Adequate nutritional intervention entails reduced (infectious) complications, hospital stay, and costs. Preoperative oral supplementation of a minimum of five days is preferable; depending on the patient and the type of surgery, immune-enhancing formulas are recommended. However, surgeons' compliance with evidence-based guidelines remains poor and efforts are necessary to implement routine nutritional screening and nutritional support.

Perioperative nutrition is still a surgical orphan

Objective: To assess if screening programs and treatment of preoperative malnutrition have been implemented into surgical practice to decrease morbidity. There is strong evidence that postoperative morbidity can be minimized by early identifying and treating patients at nutritional risk before major surgery.The validated nutritional risk score (NRS) is recommended by the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition for nutritional screening. It remains unclear whether routine preoperative nutritional assessment and perioperative nutrition is widely implemented.Methods: A survey was conducted in 173 Swiss and Austrian surgical departments. Implementation of nutritional screening, perioperative nutrition, and estimated impact on clinical outcome were assessed. Non-responders were repeatedly contacted by the authors.Results: The overall response rate was 55%, whereby 69% (54/78) of Swiss and 44% (42/95) of Austrian centers responded. Despite 80% and 59% of the responding centers are aware of a reduced complication rate and shortened hospital stay, respectively, only 20% of them implemented routine nutritional screening. Financial (49%) and logistic restrictions (33%) are the predominant reasons against the routine clinical use. Screening is mainly performed either in the outpatient's clinic (52%) or during admission (54%). The NRS is only used by 14%. Instead, various clinical (78%), e.g. BMI and laboratory findings (56%), e.g. albumine, are used. Indication for perioperative nutrition is based on preoperative screening in 49%.While 23% use preoperative nutrition, 68% apply nutritional support pre- and postoperatively. Preoperative nutritional treatment ranged from three days (33%), to five days (31%) and even seven days (20%).Conclusion: Despite malnutrition is well recognized as major risk factor for increased postoperative morbidity, the majority of surgeons are reluctant to implement routine screening and nutritional support. If nutritional assessment is performed, local institutional screening parameters are still preferred. It remains difficult to overcome traditions, and to change surgeon's mind.

Preoperative nutritional screening by the specialist instead of the nutritional risk score might prevent excess nutrition: a multivariate analysis of nutritional risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to assess whether widely used nutritional parameters are correlated with the nutritional risk score (NRS-2002) to identify postoperative morbidity and to evaluate the role of nutritionists in nutritional assessment. METHODS: A randomized trial on preoperative nutritional interventions (NCT00512213) provided the study cohort of 152 patients at nutritional risk (NRS-2002 ≥3) with a comprehensive phenotyping including diverse nutritional parameters (n=17), elaborated by nutritional specialists, and potential demographic and surgical (n=5) confounders. Risk factors for overall, severe (Dindo-Clavien 3-5) and infectious complications were identified by univariate analysis; parameters with P<0.20 were then entered in a multiple logistic regression model. RESULTS: Final analysis included 140 patients with complete datasets. Of these, 61 patients (43.6%) were overweight, and 72 patients (51.4%) experienced at least one complication of any degree of severity. Univariate analysis identified a correlation between few (≤3) active co-morbidities (OR=4.94; 95% CI: 1.47-16.56, p=0.01) and overall complications. Patients screened as being malnourished by nutritional specialists presented less overall complications compared to the not malnourished (OR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.22-0.97, p=0.043). Severe postoperative complications occurred more often in patients with low lean body mass (OR=1.06; 95% CI: 1-1.12, p=0.028). Few (≤3) active co-morbidities (OR=8.8; 95% CI: 1.12-68.99, p=0.008) were related with postoperative infections. Patients screened as being malnourished by nutritional specialists presented less infectious complications (OR=0.28; 95% CI: 0.1-0.78), p=0.014) as compared to the not malnourished. Multivariate analysis identified few co-morbidities (OR=6.33; 95% CI: 1.75-22.84, p=0.005), low weight loss (OR=1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14, p=0.006) and low hemoglobin concentration (OR=2.84; 95% CI: 1.22-6.59, p=0.021) as independent risk factors for overall postoperative complications. Compliance with nutritional supplements (OR=0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.97, p=0.041) and supplementation of malnourished patients as assessed by nutritional specialists (OR=0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.69, p=0.009) were independently associated with decreased infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional support based upon NRS-2002 screening might result in overnutrition, with potentially deleterious clinical consequences. We emphasize the importance of detailed assessment of the nutritional status by a dedicated specialist before deciding on early nutritional intervention for patients with an initial NRS-2002 score of ≥3.

Trabecular bone score in type 1 diabetes--a cross-sectional study.

UNLABELLED: Trabecular bone score (TBS) seems to provide additive value on BMD to identify individuals with prevalent fractures in T1D. TBS did not significantly differ between T1D patients and healthy controls, but TBS and HbA1c were independently associated with prevalent fractures in T1D. A TBS cutoff <1.42 reflected prevalent fractures with 91.7 % sensitivity and 43.2 % specificity. INTRODUCTION: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) increases the risk of osteoporotic fractures. TBS was recently proposed as an indirect measure of bone microarchitecture. This study aimed at investigating the TBS in T1D patients and healthy controls. Associations with prevalent fractures were tested. METHODS: One hundred nineteen T1D patients (59 males, 60 premenopausal females; mean age 43.4 ± 8.9 years) and 68 healthy controls matched for gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) were analyzed. The TBS was calculated in the lumbar region, based on two-dimensional (2D) projections of DXA assessments. RESULTS: TBS was 1.357 ± 0.129 in T1D patients and 1.389 ± 0.085 in controls (p = 0.075). T1D patients with prevalent fractures (n = 24) had a significantly lower TBS than T1D patients without fractures (1.309 ± 0.125 versus 1.370 ± 0.127, p = 0.04). The presence of fractures in T1D was associated with lower TBS (odds ratio = 0.024, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.001-0.875; p = 0.042) but not with age or BMI. TBS and HbA1c were independently associated with fractures. The area-under-the curve (AUC) of TBS was similar to that of total hip BMD in discriminating T1D patients with or without prevalent fractures. In this set-up, a TBS cutoff <1.42 discriminated the presence of fractures with a sensitivity of 91.7 % and a specificity of 43.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: TBS values are lower in T1D patients with prevalent fractures, suggesting an alteration of bone strength in this subgroup of patients. Reliable TBS cutoffs for the prediction of fracture risk in T1D need to be determined in larger prospective studies.

A Meta-Analysis of Trabecular Bone Score in Fracture Risk Prediction and Its Relationship to FRAX.

Trabecular bone score (TBS) is a gray-level textural index of bone microarchitecture derived from lumbar spine dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) images. TBS is a bone mineral density (BMD)-independent predictor of fracture risk. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine whether TBS predicted fracture risk independently of FRAX probability and to examine their combined performance by adjusting the FRAX probability for TBS. We utilized individual-level data from 17,809 men and women in 14 prospective population-based cohorts. Baseline evaluation included TBS and the FRAX risk variables, and outcomes during follow-up (mean 6.7 years) comprised major osteoporotic fractures. The association between TBS, FRAX probabilities, and the risk of fracture was examined using an extension of the Poisson regression model in each cohort and for each sex and expressed as the gradient of risk (GR; hazard ratio per 1 SD change in risk variable in direction of increased risk). FRAX probabilities were adjusted for TBS using an adjustment factor derived from an independent cohort (the Manitoba Bone Density Cohort). Overall, the GR of TBS for major osteoporotic fracture was 1.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.53) when adjusted for age and time since baseline and was similar in men and women (p > 0.10). When additionally adjusted for FRAX 10-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture, TBS remained a significant, independent predictor for fracture (GR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.24-1.41). The adjustment of FRAX probability for TBS resulted in a small increase in the GR (1.76, 95% CI 1.65-1.87 versus 1.70, 95% CI 1.60-1.81). A smaller change in GR for hip fracture was observed (FRAX hip fracture probability GR 2.25 vs. 2.22). TBS is a significant predictor of fracture risk independently of FRAX. The findings support the use of TBS as a potential adjustment for FRAX probability, though the impact of the adjustment remains to be determined in the context of clinical assessment guidelines. © 2015 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.