eISSN: 1896-9151
ISSN: 1734-1922
Archives of Medical Science
Current issue Archive Manuscripts accepted About the journal Special issues Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Subscription Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
5/2018
vol. 14
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Clinical research

Validity of the new nutrition screening tool Control of Food Intake, Protein, and Anthropometry (CIPA) in non-surgical inpatients

José Pablo Suárez-Llanos, Alejandra Mora-Mendoza, Néstor Benítez-Brito, Lina Pérez-Méndez, Francisca Pereyra-García-Castro, José Gregorio Oliva-García, José Enrique Palacio-Abizanda

Arch Med Sci 2018; 14, 5: 1020–1024
Online publish date: 2017/02/20
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Introduction
There is no gold-standard method for hospital nutrition screening. The new screening tool termed Control of Food Intake, Protein, and Anthropometry (CIPA) gives positive results when at least one of the following parameters is met: control of food intake for 72 h < 50%, serum albumin < 3 g/dl, body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 or mid-upper arm circumference ≤ 22.5 cm. This method was validated in comparison with Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in hospitalized patients with non-surgical pathologies.

Material and methods
A prospective, longitudinal study was performed on 221 consecutively enrolled patients. Prevalence or risk of malnutrition was estimated with CIPA vs. SGA screening at hospital admission and the concordance ( index – K) between the two methods and their sensitivity (S) and specificity (SP) were studied. Mean length of stay (LOS), mortality, and rate of early readmission were analyzed.

Results
The prevalence or risk of malnutrition identified by CIPA and SGA was 35.7% and 23.1%, respectively. K was 0.401 (p < 0.001); S and SP of CIPA vs. SGA were 72.5% and 75.3%, respectively. In contrast to SGA, CIPA-positive patients had an increased mean LOS compared to the negative ones (19.53 vs. 12.63 days, p < 0.001). Both methods detected a major risk of mortality in positive patients, but no difference in early readmission.

Conclusions
The CIPA and the SGA screening tools detect patients with a higher risk of mortality, but only CIPA identifies patients with an increased mean LOS. CIPA screening proved valid for use in non-surgical inpatients.

keywords:

malnutrition, screening, health care quality, inpatient, nutrition assessment

FEATURED PRODUCTS
Quick links
© 2018 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe