Yi-Qiu Zhou, Wen-Ming He, Sheng Jing, Yan-Qing Xie, Si Chen, Jia-Ning Li
{"title":"比较GLIM和SGA营养标准对慢性心力衰竭患者营养不良的评估和预后。","authors":"Yi-Qiu Zhou, Wen-Ming He, Sheng Jing, Yan-Qing Xie, Si Chen, Jia-Ning Li","doi":"10.2147/IJGM.S514143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a prevalent condition with high morbidity and mortality. Malnutrition is common in CHF patients and is associated with poor prognosis. The Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria are widely used to assess nutritional status, but their prognostic value in CHF remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of SGA and GLIM criteria in assessing malnutrition and predicting adverse outcomes in CHF patients.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 240 CHF patients admitted between January 2022 and June 2024. Nutritional status was assessed using both SGA and GLIM within 48 hours of admission. The primary outcome was the occurrence of adverse events (worsening heart failure, readmission, or all-cause mortality) within 90 days post-discharge. Statistical analyses included Cohen's kappa for agreement, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for predictive value, and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for adverse outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The agreement between SGA and GLIM criteria was good (Cohen's Kappa = 0.8). ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.744 for SGA and 0.793 for GLIM in predicting adverse outcomes. The DeLong test revealed that GLIM had a significantly better predictive value (Z = -1.93, p = 0.043). Multivariate analysis identified malnutrition (both SGA and GLIM), smoking, and elevated BNP as independent risk factors for adverse outcomes. Nomograms incorporating these factors showed good predictive accuracy, with the GLIM model yielding a higher AUC of 0.854 compared to 0.816 for SGA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Malnutrition was identified in 38.8% of patients when assessed by the SGA and in 40.0% when evaluated using the GLIM criteria. GLIM criteria are a reliable and superior tool for predicting adverse outcomes in CHF patients compared to SGA. Incorporating nutritional assessments, BNP, and smoking history into predictive models can enhance risk stratification and guide clinical decision-making in managing CHF patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14131,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of General Medicine","volume":"18 ","pages":"1669-1679"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11954478/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing GLIM and SGA Nutritional Criteria for Malnutrition Assessment and Prognosis in Chronic Heart Failure Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Yi-Qiu Zhou, Wen-Ming He, Sheng Jing, Yan-Qing Xie, Si Chen, Jia-Ning Li\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/IJGM.S514143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a prevalent condition with high morbidity and mortality. Malnutrition is common in CHF patients and is associated with poor prognosis. The Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria are widely used to assess nutritional status, but their prognostic value in CHF remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of SGA and GLIM criteria in assessing malnutrition and predicting adverse outcomes in CHF patients.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 240 CHF patients admitted between January 2022 and June 2024. Nutritional status was assessed using both SGA and GLIM within 48 hours of admission. The primary outcome was the occurrence of adverse events (worsening heart failure, readmission, or all-cause mortality) within 90 days post-discharge. Statistical analyses included Cohen's kappa for agreement, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for predictive value, and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for adverse outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The agreement between SGA and GLIM criteria was good (Cohen's Kappa = 0.8). ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.744 for SGA and 0.793 for GLIM in predicting adverse outcomes. The DeLong test revealed that GLIM had a significantly better predictive value (Z = -1.93, p = 0.043). Multivariate analysis identified malnutrition (both SGA and GLIM), smoking, and elevated BNP as independent risk factors for adverse outcomes. Nomograms incorporating these factors showed good predictive accuracy, with the GLIM model yielding a higher AUC of 0.854 compared to 0.816 for SGA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Malnutrition was identified in 38.8% of patients when assessed by the SGA and in 40.0% when evaluated using the GLIM criteria. GLIM criteria are a reliable and superior tool for predicting adverse outcomes in CHF patients compared to SGA. Incorporating nutritional assessments, BNP, and smoking history into predictive models can enhance risk stratification and guide clinical decision-making in managing CHF patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of General Medicine\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"1669-1679\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11954478/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of General Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S514143\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of General Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S514143","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:慢性心力衰竭(CHF)是一种发病率和死亡率都很高的疾病。营养不良在慢性心力衰竭患者中很常见,并与预后不良有关。主观整体评估(SGA)和营养不良全球领导倡议(GLIM)标准被广泛用于评估营养状况,但其在CHF中的预后价值尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较SGA和GLIM标准在评估CHF患者营养不良和预测不良结局方面的有效性。材料和方法:本回顾性队列研究纳入了2022年1月至2024年6月住院的240例CHF患者。入院48小时内采用SGA和GLIM评估营养状况。主要结局是出院后90天内不良事件(心衰恶化、再入院或全因死亡率)的发生情况。统计分析采用Cohen’s kappa法进行一致性分析,采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线进行预测值分析,采用多变量logistic回归来确定不良结局的独立危险因素。结果:SGA与GLIM标准吻合良好(Cohen’s Kappa = 0.8)。ROC分析显示,SGA和GLIM预测不良结局的AUC分别为0.744和0.793。DeLong检验显示GLIM具有更好的预测价值(Z = -1.93, p = 0.043)。多变量分析发现营养不良(SGA和GLIM)、吸烟和BNP升高是不良结局的独立危险因素。结合这些因素的nomogram显示出良好的预测精度,GLIM模型的AUC为0.854,而SGA模型的AUC为0.816。结论:在SGA评估中,有38.8%的患者被确定为营养不良,而在GLIM标准评估中,这一比例为40.0%。与SGA相比,GLIM标准是预测CHF患者不良结局的可靠和优越的工具。将营养评估、BNP和吸烟史纳入预测模型可以加强风险分层,指导临床决策管理CHF患者。
Comparing GLIM and SGA Nutritional Criteria for Malnutrition Assessment and Prognosis in Chronic Heart Failure Patients.
Background: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a prevalent condition with high morbidity and mortality. Malnutrition is common in CHF patients and is associated with poor prognosis. The Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria are widely used to assess nutritional status, but their prognostic value in CHF remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of SGA and GLIM criteria in assessing malnutrition and predicting adverse outcomes in CHF patients.
Material and methods: This retrospective cohort study included 240 CHF patients admitted between January 2022 and June 2024. Nutritional status was assessed using both SGA and GLIM within 48 hours of admission. The primary outcome was the occurrence of adverse events (worsening heart failure, readmission, or all-cause mortality) within 90 days post-discharge. Statistical analyses included Cohen's kappa for agreement, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for predictive value, and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for adverse outcomes.
Results: The agreement between SGA and GLIM criteria was good (Cohen's Kappa = 0.8). ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.744 for SGA and 0.793 for GLIM in predicting adverse outcomes. The DeLong test revealed that GLIM had a significantly better predictive value (Z = -1.93, p = 0.043). Multivariate analysis identified malnutrition (both SGA and GLIM), smoking, and elevated BNP as independent risk factors for adverse outcomes. Nomograms incorporating these factors showed good predictive accuracy, with the GLIM model yielding a higher AUC of 0.854 compared to 0.816 for SGA.
Conclusion: Malnutrition was identified in 38.8% of patients when assessed by the SGA and in 40.0% when evaluated using the GLIM criteria. GLIM criteria are a reliable and superior tool for predicting adverse outcomes in CHF patients compared to SGA. Incorporating nutritional assessments, BNP, and smoking history into predictive models can enhance risk stratification and guide clinical decision-making in managing CHF patients.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of General Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that focuses on general and internal medicine, pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment protocols. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research and clinical studies across all disease areas.
A key focus of the journal is the elucidation of disease processes and management protocols resulting in improved outcomes for the patient. Patient perspectives such as satisfaction, quality of life, health literacy and communication and their role in developing new healthcare programs and optimizing clinical outcomes are major areas of interest for the journal.
As of 1st April 2019, the International Journal of General Medicine will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.