Why Do We Need to Add Objectivity to Subjective Nutrition Assessment Tools in Hemodialysis Patients
Keywords:Nutrition Assessment, Objective, Subjective, Handgrip Strength, Malnutrition
AbstractIntroduction: Malnutrition is very common in hemodialysis patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. It is not clear whether subjective assessment can accurately identify status of malnutrition in dialysis patients. There is no single measure that can be utilized to provi deacomprehensive eva luationofnutritional status. Methods: Nutritional assessment was carried out using subjective and objective techniques on patients undergoing thrice a week hemodialysis. Subjective assessment was conducted using Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and Dialysis Malnutrition Score (DMS). Objective assessment was done using handgrip strength and body composition analysis. Handgrip strength (HGS) analysis was performed using handgrip dynamometer (CAMRY, model EH101) while body composition analysis was performed using Body Composition Monitor (BCM) (Fresenius Medical Care). Sensitivity, specificity. Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) were assessed. Result: Of the 91 screened patients, 81 completed the study. 81 patients of the total 91 patients, 46 were male. Their mean age was 54.8±12.7 years. Their mean albumin was 3.2±0.3 g/dl and BMI was 24.8±4.3 kg/m2. The prevalence of moderate and severe malnutrition was 69.1% and 17.2%. The sensitivity of both subjective as well as objective parameters was 86.4% while specificity of subjective parameters was 65.4% and that of objective parameters was 79%. The PPV of subjective parameters was 56.9% and that of objective parameters was 52.2%. The NPV of subjective parameters was 71.7% and that of objective parameters was 60.7%. Conclusion: Objective techniques outperform subjective techniques due to higher specificity and lower NPV. Simple, easily available bedside tools like handheld dynamometer can prove to be a good nutrition assessment technique for hemodialysis patients in combination with SGAor DMS.
Martin K, Andreas K, Michael W et al. OPTAmalnutrition in chronic renal failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007:22(3); iii: 3-19.
Agboton B, Agueh V, Vigan J et al. Assessing the nutritional status of hemodialysis patients in a Sub-Saharan country. J Kidney 2017, 3:2.
N Prasad, A Sinha, A Gupta et al. Validity of nutrition risk index as a malnutrition screening tool compared with subjective global assessment in end-stage renal disease patients on peritoneal dialysis. Indian J Nephrol 2016 Jan-Feb; 26(1): 27-32.
National Kidney Foundation (NKF)/kidney disease outcome quality initiative (K/DOQI) K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39(suppl 1):S1S266.
Arun S, Rajani H, Rajendra K et al. Assessment of nutrition status in Nepalese hemodialysis patients by anthropometric examinations and modified quantitative subjective global assessment. NutrMetan Insights 2015;8:21-27.
Yamada K, Furuya R, Takita T, et al. Simplified nutritional screening tools for patients on maintenance hemodialysis. J ClinNutr. 2008;87(1):106-113.
Tapiawala S, Vora H, Patel Z, et al. Subjective global assessment of nutritional status of patients with chronic renal insufficiency and end stage renal disease on dialysis. J Assoc Physicians India. 2006;54:923-926.
Basaleem HO, Alwan SM, Ahmed AA, Al-Sakkaf KA. Assessment of the nutritional status of endstage renal disease patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2004;15(4):455-462.
Pierre D, Kevin Q, Fanny B et al. Hand grip strength measurement in hemodialysis patients: before or after the session? Clin Kidney J 2018. Aug; 11(4): 555-558.