4.5 Article

Nutritional status in patients with chronic pancreatitis

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 67, Issue 12, Pages 1271-1276

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2013.199

Keywords

chronic pancreatitis; outpatients; malnutrition; nutritional status; nutritional assessment; anthropometry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) patients have an increased risk of malnutrition. Information about nutritional status of CP outpatients is scarce, and simple, sensitive methods to identify patients at risk are lacking. This explorative cross-sectional study was performed to survey the nutritional status of CP outpatients. SUBJECTS: Fifty patients with chronic or recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP) had a nutritional assessment performed. Scores on nutritional screening tools and a quality of life questionnaire were assessed. General observations and relations between parameters were described. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients had CP and eleven patients had RAP. According to the nutritional screening tools, 28-50% of the patients had a moderate or high risk of malnutrition. All domains of the Short Form Health Survey were significantly lowered in CP patients (all P <= 0.001) compared with the Dutch norm values. A considerable number of patients scored below the 5th percentile on anthropometric measures. Mini Nutritional Assessment could not identify all patients with very low anthropometric scores. Substantial weight loss was not a sensitive indicator for functional impairment. CONCLUSION: CP outpatients are at risk of malnutrition. Currently used screening methods (for example, weight loss) are likely to be not sensitive enough to identify all patients with impaired body composition and restricted function. Therefore, some patients with objective decline in nutritional status will remain unidentified. An extended nutritional assessment is recommendable in CP patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available