Premium
Comparison of creatinine index and geriatric nutritional risk index for nutritional evaluation of patients with hemodialysis
Author(s) -
Hwang Wonsun,
Cho Mi Sook,
Oh Ji Eun,
Lee Ji Hyun,
Jeong Jong Cheol,
Shin GyuTae,
Kim Heungsoo,
Park Inwhee
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
hemodialysis international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.658
H-Index - 47
eISSN - 1542-4758
pISSN - 1492-7535
DOI - 10.1111/hdi.12674
Subject(s) - malnutrition , medicine , hemodialysis , creatinine , body mass index , disease , intensive care medicine , pediatrics
Abstract Introduction: Malnutrition is prevalent in hemodialysis (HD) patients, and the risk of mortality is strongly correlated with malnutrition. Current methods of nutritional evaluation are mostly subjective, time‐consuming, and cumbersome. Creatinine index (CI) and geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) are very simple and objective methods to assess the nutritional status of HD patients. The present study compares the performance of CI and GNRI as nutritional risk assessment tools. Methods: Eighty‐eight patients with end‐stage renal disease on HD were recruited from a single tertiary center. A clinical dietitian carried out individual interviews of all patients and made nutritional diagnosis. Demographic and clinical data were also used to derive GNRI and CI over 4 months. Findings: Thirty‐eight out of 88 patients (44%) were diagnosed with normal nutritional status. Twenty‐two patients (25%) were diagnosed with severe malnutrition and 27 (31%) had moderate malnutrition. Compared with patients with severe malnutrition, the normal group and those with moderate malnutrition showed significantly higher levels of body mass index and GNRI. Even though GNRI was associated with CI, protein intake, uric acid, and normalized protein nitrogen were not significantly correlated with GNRI, whereas the markers were highly associated with CI (P = 0.000). GNRI enable the identification of the severe malnutrition group but not the normal and moderate‐malnutrition groups. However, based on CI, the normal group was distinguished while those with severe and moderate malnutrition were not. Discussion: Either CI or GNRI was a valid tool for longitudinal observation of nutritional status of patients on chronic HD and facilitated the screening of cases with malnutrition. Compared with GNRI, CI ranked higher in performance for the assessment and monitoring of nutritional status in HD patients.