P577 - COMPARING DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF THE MUST AND THE PG-SGA SF IN HOSPITALISED PATIENTS WITH CARDIAC DISEASE

P577

COMPARING DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF THE MUST AND THE PG-SGA SF IN HOSPITALISED PATIENTS WITH CARDIAC DISEASE

H. Zweers¹, M. den Otter^1,2, M. Slobbe^1,3, E. Noom¹, H. Jager-Wittenaar^1,4,5,*

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dietetics, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, ²Department of Human Nutrition and Health, Radboud university medical center, ³Department of Human Nutrition and Health, wageningen University &research, Wageningen, ⁴Research Group Healthy Ageing, University of Applied Sciences Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, ⁵Department of Physiotherapy, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Research Unit Experimental Anatomy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculty of Physical Education and Physiotherapy, Brussel, Belgium

Rationale: Measured body weight of patients with cardiac disease is often inaccurate because of fluid retention, which makes choosing the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) as nutritional screening tool questionable, since it largely depends on weight/weight change. In this study, we hypothesized that the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form (PG-SGA SF) is better in detecting risk of malnutrition in patients with cardiac disease. 

Methods: In total, 82 participants from the Department of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery of Radboudumc were screened for risk of malnutrition with the MUST and the PG-SGA SF. High risk was defined as PG-SGA SF ≥9 or MUST ≥2. Malnutrition was diagnosed using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) was used to apply the GLIM criterion reduced muscle mass and to assess hydration status. Sensitivity and specificity were chosen as the primary outcome variables for diagnostic accuracy of the screening tools.

Results: A total of 14% of the participants (n=12) were malnourished, of which n=4 were overhydrated. Sensitivity of assessing high risk of malnutrition using the PG-SGA SF was 0.5 (CI: 0.22;0.79), compared to 0.17 (CI: -0.04;0.38) of the MUST. Specificity of the PG-SGA SF was 0.91 (CI: 0.82;0.97) versus 0.97 (CI: 0.93;1.01) of the MUST.

Conclusion: As expected in patients with cardiac disease, the PG-SGA SF has a higher sensitivity, identifying more patients with high risk of malnutrition than the MUST, while specificity of both tools was good. The results suggest a preference for applying the proactive screening tool PG-SGA SF over the MUST in patients with cardiac disease.

Disclosure of Interest: H. Zweers Grant / Research Support from: traval grant for ESPEN from Fresenius, M. den Otter: None declared, M. Slobbe: None declared, E. Noom: None declared, H. Jager-Wittenaar Grant / Research Support from: H. Jager-Wittenaar was co-developer of the PG-SGA-based Pt-Global web tool