S Chevalier1, F Saoud, K Gray-Donald, J A Morais. 1. McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Royal Victoria Hospital, 687 Pine Ave West, Room H6.61, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of malnutrition in frail elders undergoing rehabilitation and the association between their nutritional status and physical function. DESIGN: Observational study of new participants undergoing ambulatory rehabilitation. SETTING: Two Geriatric Day Hospitals (GDH) in Montreal, Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: 121 women and 61 men. INTERVENTION: Evaluation of nutritional status, body composition and physical function. MEASUREMENTS: The nutritional status was assessed with a composite index based on anthropometric measurements and serum albumin, as well as using the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) questionnaire. Patients were classified as well-nourished, having mild/at risk of malnutrition or malnourished. Body composition was estimated by bioimpedance and handgrip strength and gait speed by standard methods. RESULTS: 13% of patients were found to be mildly malnourished, whereas 6% were malnourished. Malnourished patients were older and had worse cognition, lower BMI, and % body fat (all p<0.05). Malnourished patients and those with mild malnutrition had lower weight, triceps skinfold thickness, muscle and fat mass (all, p<0.003). Handgrip strength was different according to the nutritional status (p=0.034) and correlated with muscle mass (r=0.65, p<0.001). MNA classified 53% of patients as being at risk whereas 3% were malnourished and it correlated with gait speed (r=0.26, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of patients in GDH at risk or with mild malnutrition. Being malnourished was associated with worse physical performance, which suggests that a nutritional intervention may be of benefit in improving their physical function.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of malnutrition in frail elders undergoing rehabilitation and the association between their nutritional status and physical function. DESIGN: Observational study of new participants undergoing ambulatory rehabilitation. SETTING: Two Geriatric Day Hospitals (GDH) in Montreal, Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: 121 women and 61 men. INTERVENTION: Evaluation of nutritional status, body composition and physical function. MEASUREMENTS: The nutritional status was assessed with a composite index based on anthropometric measurements and serum albumin, as well as using the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) questionnaire. Patients were classified as well-nourished, having mild/at risk of malnutrition or malnourished. Body composition was estimated by bioimpedance and handgrip strength and gait speed by standard methods. RESULTS: 13% of patients were found to be mildly malnourished, whereas 6% were malnourished. Malnourished patients were older and had worse cognition, lower BMI, and % body fat (all p<0.05). Malnourished patients and those with mild malnutrition had lower weight, triceps skinfold thickness, muscle and fat mass (all, p<0.003). Handgrip strength was different according to the nutritional status (p=0.034) and correlated with muscle mass (r=0.65, p<0.001). MNA classified 53% of patients as being at risk whereas 3% were malnourished and it correlated with gait speed (r=0.26, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of patients in GDH at risk or with mild malnutrition. Being malnourished was associated with worse physical performance, which suggests that a nutritional intervention may be of benefit in improving their physical function.
Authors: Jeremy Walston; Evan C Hadley; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Anne B Newman; Stephanie A Studenski; William B Ershler; Tamara Harris; Linda P Fried Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: T Cederholm; B Wretlind; K Hellström; B Andersson; L Engström; K Brismar; A Scheynius; J Forslid; J Palmblad Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: P Dehail; P-A Joseph; P Faux; M Rainfray; J P Emeriau; M Barat; I Bourdel-Marchasson Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: T Rantanen; J M Guralnik; R Sakari-Rantala; S Leveille; E M Simonsick; S Ling; L P Fried Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: K E Charlton; C Nichols; S Bowden; K Lambert; L Barone; M Mason; M Milosavljevic Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: A Salvà; S Andrieu; E Fernandez; E J Schiffrin; J Moulin; B Decarli; X Rojano-i-Luque; Y Guigoz; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: T E Dorner; E Luger; J Tschinderle; K V Stein; S Haider; A Kapan; C Lackinger; K E Schindler Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.075