Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: In order to identify critically ill patients with high nutritional risk the modified NUTrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC)-score was developed. This score aims to identify patients that will benefit from nutritional interventions. Few data are available on its validity. In The Netherlands, the MUST-score, a nutritional assessment tool for non-ICU patients, is commonly used in the ICU. To validate the mNUTRIC-score in Dutch ICU patients and compare its prognostic performance with the MUST-score. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study among 475 mechanically ventilated patients. Prognostic performance of the mNUTRIC and MUST-scores were assessed and compared for discriminative abilities for 28-day mortality and prolonged mechanical ventilation (>2 days). RESULTS: The discriminative ability of the mNUTRIC-score for 28-day mortality is (ROC-AUC) 0.768 (95% CI 0.722-0.814) with an associated LR+ of 1.73 (95% CI 1.53-1.95) and LR- of 0.24 (95% CI 0.14-0.39) when comparing low with high (>4) scores. Comparing low with high MUST-scores (>1) a ROC-AUC of 0.513 (95% CI 0.445-0.587) and LR+ of 1.05 (95%CI 0.77-1.45) and LR- of 0.97 (95% CI 0.71-1.17) for mortality were found. The discriminative ability for prolonged ventilation was 0.666 (95% CI 0.616-0.716) and 0.532 (95% CI 0.469-0.594) for the mNUTRIC and MUST-scores, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic performance of the mNUTRIC-score for 28-day mortality is fair and comparable to other validation studies. The association with prolonged ventilation was not confirmed by our results. The mNUTRIC-score has better performance than the commonly used MUST-score. Therefore, we suggest abandoning use of the MUST-score and to recommend introduction of the mNUTRIC-score for the nutritional risk assessment of critically ill patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vries et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: