OBJECTIVES: To analyse the prevalence of malnutrition in candidates for lung transplantation and to establish if there are any differences in the prevalence of malnutrition among the different groups of patients regarding their illness. METHODS: We reviewed the nutritional evaluation of 163 consecutive transplant candidates referred to our hospital (1996-2001). The nutritional assessment included: clinical history, anthropometric measurements, bioelectrical impedance analysis, and biochemical measurements. The nutritional status diagnosis was determined following RWS Chang protocol. RESULTS: 163 patients (108 male/55 female; 42.9 +/- 14.7 yr.) agrupped into four main lung diseases groups: obstructive (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease): 60 (36.8%); interstitial (idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis): 45 (27.6%); septic (cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis): 47 (28.8%); and vascular (primary pulmonary hypertension and miscellaneous etiology): 11 (6.7%). The prevalence of malnutrition is 60.9% (IC 95%; 53.4-68.4) and the most prevalent type is moderate caloric malnutrition (23.3%). Percentage of triceps skinfold thickness was lower in the septic group (65.1 +/- 43.0) than in the obstructive (94.8 +/- 53.9; p < 0.05) or in the interstitial one (130.3 +/- 61.5; p < 0.0001). Interstitial group had also the higher weight, BMI and percentage of ideal weight. Percentage of arm muscle circumference was only different between interstitial and septic groups (105.5 +/- 18.3 vs 95.9 +/- 11.1; p < 0.01). Resting energy expenditure was lower in septic patients. This group had lower levels of prealbumin than obstructive (17.6 +/- 4.7 vs 24.4 +/- 4.8 mg/dl; p < 0.0001) or interstitial groups (17.6 +/- 4.7 vs 27.3 +/- 7.7 mg/dl; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Malnutrition in patients awaiting lung transplantation is highly prevalent, specially in septic and vascular lung diseases. Anthropometric measurements are a good and easy option to explore this problem. Nutritional rehabilitation of these patients could improve their postoperative course.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the prevalence of malnutrition in candidates for lung transplantation and to establish if there are any differences in the prevalence of malnutrition among the different groups of patients regarding their illness. METHODS: We reviewed the nutritional evaluation of 163 consecutive transplant candidates referred to our hospital (1996-2001). The nutritional assessment included: clinical history, anthropometric measurements, bioelectrical impedance analysis, and biochemical measurements. The nutritional status diagnosis was determined following RWS Chang protocol. RESULTS: 163 patients (108 male/55 female; 42.9 +/- 14.7 yr.) agrupped into four main lung diseases groups: obstructive (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease): 60 (36.8%); interstitial (idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis): 45 (27.6%); septic (cystic fibrosis and bronchiectasis): 47 (28.8%); and vascular (primary pulmonary hypertension and miscellaneous etiology): 11 (6.7%). The prevalence of malnutrition is 60.9% (IC 95%; 53.4-68.4) and the most prevalent type is moderate caloric malnutrition (23.3%). Percentage of triceps skinfold thickness was lower in the septic group (65.1 +/- 43.0) than in the obstructive (94.8 +/- 53.9; p < 0.05) or in the interstitial one (130.3 +/- 61.5; p < 0.0001). Interstitial group had also the higher weight, BMI and percentage of ideal weight. Percentage of arm muscle circumference was only different between interstitial and septic groups (105.5 +/- 18.3 vs 95.9 +/- 11.1; p < 0.01). Resting energy expenditure was lower in septic patients. This group had lower levels of prealbumin than obstructive (17.6 +/- 4.7 vs 24.4 +/- 4.8 mg/dl; p < 0.0001) or interstitial groups (17.6 +/- 4.7 vs 27.3 +/- 7.7 mg/dl; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Malnutrition in patients awaiting lung transplantation is highly prevalent, specially in septic and vascular lung diseases. Anthropometric measurements are a good and easy option to explore this problem. Nutritional rehabilitation of these patients could improve their postoperative course.
Authors: Ryan K Shields; Cornelius J Clancy; Aniket Vadnerkar; Eun J Kwak; Fernanda P Silveira; Rima C Abdel Massih; Joseph M Pilewski; Maria Crespo; Yoshiya Toyoda; Jay K Bhama; Christian Bermudez; M Hong Nguyen Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 5.191