TY - JOUR
T1 - Geriatric nutritional risk index, muscle function, quality of life and clinical outcome in hemodialysis patients
AU - Beberashvili, Ilia
AU - Azar, Ada
AU - Sinuani, Inna
AU - Shapiro, Gregory
AU - Feldman, Leonid
AU - Sandbank, Judith
AU - Stav, Kobi
AU - Efrati, Shai
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism
PY - 2016/12/1
Y1 - 2016/12/1
N2 - Background & aims The geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) has been reported as a useful predictor of prognosis in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients, demonstrating GNRI less than 90 as a marker of a poorer nutritional status and significantly increased mortality. We tested whether GNRI as a whole associated stronger with clinical and laboratory surrogates of nutrition and inflammation, muscle function, health-related quality of life (QoL), and predicts all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in this population better than its individual components (albumin and body weight to ideal body weight ratio). Methods A prospective observational study with a median follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range - 19–41 months) was performed on 352 MHD outpatients (38.0% women) with a mean age of 67.4 ± 13.2 years. All-cause and cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality, GNRI, handgrip strength (HGS), body composition parameters (anthropometry and bioimpedance) and short form 36 (SF-36) quality-of-life scores were measured. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to obtain adjusted correlations. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were applied to identify the predictive value of GNRI and its components separately. Results GNRI positively correlated with total score (r = 0.15, P < 0.05), the physical health dimension (r = 0.14, P < 0.05), the general health (r = 0.18, P < 0.01) and some other scales of the SF-36. A significant correlation of GNRI with HGS in male patients didn't stand up to multivariable adjustments. For each one unit increase in baseline GNRI levels, the first hospitalization hazard ratio (HR) after adjustments for confounders was 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97 to 0.99) and the first CV event HR was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97 to 0.99); all-cause death HR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.99) and CV death HR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95–0.99). Albumin was related to QoL and clinical outcomes with higher strength and magnitude than GNRI. Conclusions Despite the significant relationship with clinical outcomes and QOL, GNRI is not better and is even slightly worse than albumin's performance. This raises doubts as to the clinical utility of GNRI as a prognostic tool in the MHD population.
AB - Background & aims The geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) has been reported as a useful predictor of prognosis in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients, demonstrating GNRI less than 90 as a marker of a poorer nutritional status and significantly increased mortality. We tested whether GNRI as a whole associated stronger with clinical and laboratory surrogates of nutrition and inflammation, muscle function, health-related quality of life (QoL), and predicts all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in this population better than its individual components (albumin and body weight to ideal body weight ratio). Methods A prospective observational study with a median follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range - 19–41 months) was performed on 352 MHD outpatients (38.0% women) with a mean age of 67.4 ± 13.2 years. All-cause and cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality, GNRI, handgrip strength (HGS), body composition parameters (anthropometry and bioimpedance) and short form 36 (SF-36) quality-of-life scores were measured. Multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to obtain adjusted correlations. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were applied to identify the predictive value of GNRI and its components separately. Results GNRI positively correlated with total score (r = 0.15, P < 0.05), the physical health dimension (r = 0.14, P < 0.05), the general health (r = 0.18, P < 0.01) and some other scales of the SF-36. A significant correlation of GNRI with HGS in male patients didn't stand up to multivariable adjustments. For each one unit increase in baseline GNRI levels, the first hospitalization hazard ratio (HR) after adjustments for confounders was 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97 to 0.99) and the first CV event HR was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97 to 0.99); all-cause death HR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.99) and CV death HR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95–0.99). Albumin was related to QoL and clinical outcomes with higher strength and magnitude than GNRI. Conclusions Despite the significant relationship with clinical outcomes and QOL, GNRI is not better and is even slightly worse than albumin's performance. This raises doubts as to the clinical utility of GNRI as a prognostic tool in the MHD population.
KW - Geriatric nutritional risk index
KW - Handgrip strength
KW - Hemodialysis
KW - Hospitalization
KW - Quality of life
KW - Survival
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964294691&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.04.010
DO - 10.1016/j.clnu.2016.04.010
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 27117682
AN - SCOPUS:84964294691
SN - 0261-5614
VL - 35
SP - 1522
EP - 1529
JO - Clinical Nutrition
JF - Clinical Nutrition
IS - 6
ER -