4.6 Article

Comparison of Nutrition Indices for Prognostic Utility in Patients with Sepsis: A Real-World Observational Study

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13071302

关键词

sepsis; geriatric nutritional risk index; prognostic nutritional index; controlling nutritional status; prognostic value; poor nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of three nutritional indices, GNRI, PNI, and CONUT, on mortality in patients with sepsis in Japan. The results showed that a decrease in GNRI below 100 and PNI below 40 was associated with increased mortality risk. An increased CONUT score was also linearly associated with increased mortality.
Background: Nutritional status of critically ill patients is an important factor affecting complications and mortality. This study aimed to investigate the impact of three nutritional indices, the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), and Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT), on mortality in patients with sepsis in Japan. Methods: This retrospective observational study used the Medical Data Vision database containing data from 42 acute-care hospitals in Japan. We extracted data on baseline characteristics on admission. GNRI, PNI, and CONUT scores on admission were also calculated. To evaluate the significance of these three nutritional indices on mortality, we used logistic regression to fit restricted cubic spline models and constructed Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results: We identified 32,159 patients with sepsis according to the inclusion criteria. Of them, 1804 patients were treated in intensive care units, and 3461 patients were non-survivors. When the GNRI dropped below 100, the risk of mortality rose sharply, as did that when the PNI dropped below about 40. An increased CONUT score was associated with increased mortality in an apparent linear manner. Conclusion: In sepsis management, GNRI and PNI values may potentially be helpful in identifying patients with a high risk of death.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据