Comparing the prognostic significance of nutritional screening tools and ESPEN-DCM on 3-month and 12-month outcomes in stroke patients

Abstract

Malnutrition is prevalent among individuals with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) and may worsen clinical outcomes. There is no consensus on the best tool for nutritional screening in this population. The present study compared four screening tools and one diagnostic tool in terms of their prognostic significance in predicting short-term and long-term outcomes in AIS patients. We included patients admitted to five major hospitals in Wenzhou and diagnosed with a primary diagnosis of AIS from October 1 to December 31, 2018. The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score, the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), the Nutritional Risk Screening Tool 2002 (NRS-2002) and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism diagnostic criteria for malnutrition (ESPEN-DCM) were assessed at admission. The clinical outcomes were evaluated by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality at 3 months and 12 months after discharge. Five hundred and ninety-three patients were included in our prospective study. The mean age was 67.3±12.0 years. Based on the mRS score, 125 patients exhibited poor functional recovery (an mRS ≥3) at 3 months after discharge. Seventeen patients died during the 3-month follow-up period, and the other 25 did not survive 12 months. Multivariate binary logistic regression revealed that inadequate nutritional status at admission, as determined by the CONUT, GNRI, MUST, NRS-2002 and ESPEN-DCM, were independently associated with poor outcomes in AIS patients 3 months after discharge. Both MUST ≥2 and NRS-2002≥3 showed significant associations with poor outcomes at 12-month post-discharge. Further analysis with the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve showed similar results, where all the tools predicted the poor outcomes at 3 months while only the NRS-2002 and MUST scores were significantly associated with the mRS at 12 months post-discharge. Moreover, the area under the curve (AUC) of MUST and NRS-2002 were significantly larger than those for the other tools. The optimal cut-off values of the MUST and NRS-2002 to predict poor outcomes were scores of ≥2 and≥3 points, respectively. Our data supported a deleterious effect of inadequate nutrition, as evidenced by the nutrition screening tools or ESPEN-DCM, on clinical outcomes during and beyond the acute phase of AIS. We recommended the use of the MUST and NRS-2002 in guiding nutritional support in AIS patients, as they have higher predictive power and can predict both short-term and long-term outcomes.