4.7 Article

Incidence and Impact of Refeeding Syndrome in an Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology Ward of an Italian Tertiary Referral Center: A Prospective Cohort Study

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 14, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14071343

Keywords

refeeding; malnutrition; ASPEN criteria; mortality; length of hospital stay; readmission

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Refeeding syndrome (RS) has a high incidence among clinical wards, influencing clinical outcomes. Awareness among clinicians is necessary for identifying patients at risk and supporting those developing this syndrome.
Background: Refeeding syndrome (RS) is a neglected, potentially fatal syndrome that occurs in malnourished patients undergoing rapid nutritional replenishment after a period of fasting. The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) recently released new criteria for RS risk and diagnosis. Real-life data on its incidence are still limited. Methods: We consecutively enrolled patients admitted to the Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology Unit of our center. The RS risk prevalence and incidence of RS were evaluated according to ASPEN. The length of stay (LOS), mortality, and re-admission rate within 30 days were assessed. Results: Among 203 admitted patients, 98 (48.3%) were at risk of RS; RS occurred in 38 patients (18.7% of the entire cohort). Patients diagnosed with RS had a higher mean LOS (12.5 days +/- 7.9) than those who were not diagnosed with RS (7.1 +/- 4.2) (p < 0.0001). Nine patients (4.4%) died. Body mass index (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69-0.97), RS diagnosis (OR 10.1; 95% CI 2.4-42.6), and medical nutritional support within 48 h (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02-0.56) were associated with mortality. Conclusions: RS incidence is high among clinical wards, influencing clinical outcomes. Awareness among clinicians is necessary to identify patients at risk and to support those developing this syndrome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available