ESPEN 2022 Late Breaking Abstracts
Topic: Nutritional assessment
Abstract Submission Identifier: ESPEN22-LB-2178
SARCOPENIA RISK ASSESSEMENT AS AN INDEPENDENT TOOL FOR NUTRITIONAL STATUS ASSESSEMNT AMONGST REHABILITATION INSTITUTIONALIZED PATIENTS: AN UPDATE
I. Costa Moreira 1, C. Gondar 2, M. Correia*, 3
1ESB-UCP, Porto, 2ISCMST, Santo Tirso, 3ESB-CBQF, UCP, Porto, Portugal
Rationale: The study aims to characterize the nutritional status and risk of sarcopenia within patients institutionalized in a private social Portuguese rehabilitation institution.
Methods: Of the 32-patients institutionalized in December 2021, a final sample of 11 were included. NRS-2002 and SARC-F were used to assess nutritional and sarcopenia risk, respectively. Patient´s food intake was estimated by observing patient´s main meals eating habits (1/4 of the plate). To evaluate the nutritional status, a) Body Mass Index kg/m2 (BMI); and b) mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) was used. Regarding sarcopenia risk calf circumference (CC) was assessed. Functional capacity was evaluated using the hand grip Jamar dynamometer. A short number of patients in the sample determined a descriptive analysis.
Results: 5/11 patients were male (45%) and 6 were female (55%), with an average age of 78 years ±13,96 (M=81; min40; max92). Two-patients had an NRS-2002 score>3, being at risk for malnutrition. According to the MUAC, these same 2 patients had a BMI <20 kg/m2. SARC-F identified 8-patients at risk for sarcopenia (72.7%) which was not in agreement with CC, as this assessment classified 3-patients at risk for sarcopenia. The hand grip test classified every patient (100%) with sarcopenia. Interestingly, patients who ate all their meal (>3/4) were not identified as sarcopenic by the SARC-F. Results are summarized in table 1 (Bold = patients with sarcopenia risk; Italic = malnourished patients).
Table 1 – Assessment of nutritional risk/status and sarcopenia risk | ||||||||||||
|
Patient ID |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 | |
|
Sex |
F |
F |
M |
M |
F |
F |
M |
M |
F |
M |
F | |
|
NRS-2002 score |
0 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 | |
|
Nutritional status |
BMI (kg/m2) |
25.5 |
20.3 |
23.9 |
22.9 |
29.1 |
22.6 |
19 |
20.8 |
25.1 |
23.9 |
16.3 |
|
MUAC (cm) |
31.8 |
25 |
25.3 |
30.9 |
38.9 |
23.2 |
24.1 |
27.6 |
29.3 |
25.1 |
19.3 | |
|
CC (cm) |
37.4 |
32.6 |
32.8 |
33.1 |
36.2 |
33.3 |
29.1 |
30.9 |
33.1 |
31.4 |
23.8 | |
|
Sarcopenia risk |
SARC-F score |
2 |
5 |
5 |
7 |
3 |
8 |
8 |
3 |
6 |
5 |
7 |
|
Hand grip (kg/strength) |
0 |
4.2 |
23.7 |
18.7 |
9 |
9.1 |
7.2 |
9.2 |
7 |
7.7 |
5 | |
Conclusion: The risk of sarcopenia was prevalent in our sample and occurred, regardless of a normal BMI or the absence of a malnutrition risk assessment. This might mean that sarcopenia should always be screened as an independent tool of the nutritional risk assessment throughout rehabilitation period.
References: Cruz-Jentoft et al. Sarcopenia: Revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis.Age Ageing 48,16–31(2019).
Disclosure of Interest: None Declared
Keywords: functional rehabilitation, Nutritional assessment tools, Sarcopenia