PURPOSE: To describe the nutritional status in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in three different defined moments: at admission to the Bone Marrow Transplant Unit (BMTU), at discharge from the BMTU and at follow-up. We hypothesized that nutrition status declines during hospitalization and recovers at follow-up. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Nutritional status was determined using the patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) at three different defined moments: T1, defined as the time of admission to the BMTU; T2, at the time of discharge from the BMTU; and T3, at follow-up appointment 10 days after discharge. PG-SGA score differences were described among T1, T2, and T3. Participants were adults admitted for any type of HSCT to our BMTU from March 2010 to July 2013. One hundred and twenty-three patients were included. RESULTS: Subjects (94.3 %) were well nourished at T1, but 59.7 % were classified as malnourished at T2. PG-SGA score was 3.39 (±3.47) at T1, 12.3 (±5.6) at T2, and 6.54 (±4.57) at T3 (p < 0.001). During hospitalization, nutritional status deteriorated more in men than women (10.59 vs. 7.93; p = 0.002), in patients with length of hospital stay greater than 21 days (10.64 vs. 8.45, p = 0.034), in patients younger than 60 years (10.7 vs. 6.42; p = 0.0007), and those individuals with allogeneic transplant (12.45 vs. 8.74; p = 0.0152). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing HSCT were well nourished upon admission to the BMTU. Nutritional status significantly declined during hospitalization and improved at follow-up. However, nutritional intervention may still be required.
PURPOSE: To describe the nutritional status in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in three different defined moments: at admission to the Bone Marrow Transplant Unit (BMTU), at discharge from the BMTU and at follow-up. We hypothesized that nutrition status declines during hospitalization and recovers at follow-up. METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Nutritional status was determined using the patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) at three different defined moments: T1, defined as the time of admission to the BMTU; T2, at the time of discharge from the BMTU; and T3, at follow-up appointment 10 days after discharge. PG-SGA score differences were described among T1, T2, and T3. Participants were adults admitted for any type of HSCT to our BMTU from March 2010 to July 2013. One hundred and twenty-three patients were included. RESULTS: Subjects (94.3 %) were well nourished at T1, but 59.7 % were classified as malnourished at T2. PG-SGA score was 3.39 (±3.47) at T1, 12.3 (±5.6) at T2, and 6.54 (±4.57) at T3 (p < 0.001). During hospitalization, nutritional status deteriorated more in men than women (10.59 vs. 7.93; p = 0.002), in patients with length of hospital stay greater than 21 days (10.64 vs. 8.45, p = 0.034), in patients younger than 60 years (10.7 vs. 6.42; p = 0.0007), and those individuals with allogeneic transplant (12.45 vs. 8.74; p = 0.0152). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing HSCT were well nourished upon admission to the BMTU. Nutritional status significantly declined during hospitalization and improved at follow-up. However, nutritional intervention may still be required.
Authors: M Muscaritoli; L Conversano; C Cangiano; S Capria; A Laviano; W Arcese; F Rossi Fanelli Journal: Nutrition Date: 1995 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.008
Authors: T M Dickson; C R Kusnierz-Glaz; K G Blume; R S Negrin; W W Hu; J A Shizuru; L L Johnston; R M Wong; K E Stockerl-Goldstein Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 1999 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Antonio L Vigano; Jonathan di Tomasso; Robert D Kilgour; Barbara Trutschnigg; Enriqueta Lucar; José A Morais; Manuel Borod Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: M Hadjibabaie; M Iravani; M Taghizadeh; A Ataie-Jafari; A R Shamshiri; S A Mousavi; K Alimoghaddam; S Hosseini; A Ghavamzadeh Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2008-07-07 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Yun-Chi Hung; Judith Bauer; Pamela Horsley; Mary Waterhouse; John Bashford; Elisabeth Isenring Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Silvana Iturriet Paiva; Lúcia R Borges; Denise Halpern-Silveira; M Cecília F Assunção; Aluisio J D Barros; M Cristina Gonzalez Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-12-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ana Cláudia Thomaz; Carolline Ilha Silvério; Denise Johnsson Campos; Elena Emilia Moreira Kieuteka; Estela Iraci Rabito; Vaneuza Araújo Moreira Funke; Regina Maria Vilela Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Amro Mohamed Sedky El-Ghammaz; Rima Ben Matoug; Maha Elzimaity; Nevine Mostafa Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Gisele Trennepohl da Costa Heinen; Daniella Schmit; Denise Johnsson Campos; Carmem Bonfim; Estela Iraci Rabito; Regina Maria Vilela Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 3.603