Anesth Pain Med Search

CLOSE


Anesth Pain Med > Volume 19(4); 2024 > Article
Kim, Park, Kim, and Cho: Preoperative nutritional scores to predict mortality after liver transplantation: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Background

Malnutrition is a well-known risk factor for mortality and morbidity. We investigated whether preoperative malnutrition, diagnosed using an objective nutritional index, was associated with postoperative mortality in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT).

Methods

This retrospective cohort observational study assessed the preoperative nutritional status of 440 patients who underwent LT, using the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), and Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score. We evaluated the association between preoperative malnutrition and 3-year postoperative mortality using the Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test. In addition, we identified prognostic factors for mortality using Cox proportional hazard analysis.

Results

Malnutrition was identified in 72.7% (n = 320), 66.1% (n = 291), and 97.3% (n = 428) of patients as assessed by the NRI, PNI, and CONUT score, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve demonstrated that mortality increased with the presence and severity of malnutrition risk, as assessed by the NRI and PNI, respectively; however, NRI was the only index identified as an independent risk factor for mortality, along with preoperative renal replacement therapy, platelet count, and C-reactive protein. After adjustment, lower NRI was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.99, P = 0.009). The malnutrition group (NRI ≤ 100) had a significantly greater incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury than that of the normal group.

Conclusions

Preoperative NRI is an independent risk factor for mortality after LT, and therefore it would be a helpful tool for mortality risk stratification in patients undergoing LT.

INTRODUCTION

Malnutrition is a well-recognized risk factor for poor prognosis and mortality after surgery [1]. Malnutrition is prevalent in patients with liver diseases as they are at an elevated risk of nutritional depletion due to insufficient nutrient and calorie intake, intestinal malabsorption, and metabolic alterations [2,3]. The prevalence of caloric deficits in patients with Child-Pugh class A is extremely high at 48%; moreover, nearly 100% of patients with end-stage liver disease expecting liver transplantation (LT) reportedly have protein-energy malnutrition [2]. Surgery-induced trauma exacerbates malnutrition and contributes to poor prognosis [3].
Preoperative nutritional status in patients undergoing LT has been assessed using several screening tools such as Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment and anthropometry [4-6]. However, these tools are based on history and physical examination of patients, and thus, are difficult to use for patients with impaired consciousness or poor general condition [7]. In addition, they rely on the patients’ subjective assessment and memory, whereas the Nutritional Risk Index (NRI), Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI), and Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score are objective and simple nutritional indices based on laboratory parameters and body weight. Their prognostic values have been validated in patients with various conditions [8] and have shown comparable or higher predictive values than the Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment [9,10]. However, studies on the predictive utility of these indices for prognosis after LT have been limited; furthermore, the most reliable index in patients undergoing LT is not known.
We conducted this retrospective review to appraise the use of objective nutritional indices to predict mortality in patients undergoing LT. We evaluated the preoperative nutritional status using three objective nutritional indices. We investigated their association with the postoperative 3-year mortality and determined the most reliable index for predicting outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study population and ethical consideration

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 440 patients who underwent LT between January 2016 and December 2020. Patients who underwent LT surgery were enrolled in this study. Patients aged < 18 years, those undergoing re-transplantation, and those with incomplete data required for calculating nutritional indices or follow-up were excluded.
The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board and Hospital Research Ethics Committee of Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea (#4-2022-1212). The requirement for written informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective design of the study.

Data collection

The patient data were obtained from an electronic database of medical records. The retrieved preoperative data included patient demographics, co-morbidities, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and etiology of end-stage liver diseases. Preoperative laboratory data included platelet count, total lymphocyte count, and levels of hemoglobin, serum albumin, total cholesterol, glucose, creatinine, C-reactive protein, total bilirubin, and alpha-fetoprotein. Laboratory tests were performed on admission (routinely performed within the week prior to surgery). The intraoperative data included donor status (living/deceased). The postoperative data included complications such as acute kidney injury (defined as an increase of 0.3 mg/dl) in serum creatinine within 48 h, or an increase of 50% within the first 7 postoperative days according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes definition [11], stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, prolonged ventilator care (> 48 h), and reoperation for hemostasis. In addition, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, and mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery were assessed. Mortality was evaluated using data from the hospital medical record system or the Ministry of Public Administration and Security. Mortality at follow-up was analyzed using time-to-event analysis. The survival time was calculated from the date of surgery until that of death.

Nutritional risk assessment and stratification of patients

Preoperative nutritional status was evaluated using the NRI, PNI, and CONUT score. The most recently measured variable before surgery was used to calculate the nutritional index. The NRI was calculated as 15.19 × serum albumin (g/dl) + 41.7 × body weight/ideal body weight. Patients were stratified into the following groups based on the risk of malnutrition: normal (NRI > 100), mild (NRI 97.5-100), moderate (NRI 83.5-97.5), and severe (NRI < 83.5) [12]. The PNI was calculated as 10 × serum albumin (g/dl) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (/mm3). Patients were stratified into the following groups based on the risk of malnutrition: normal (PNI > 38), moderate (PNI 35-38), and severe (PNI < 35) [8]. The CONUT score was calculated using serum albumin, total cholesterol, and total lymphocyte count according to the CONUT scoring system. The patients were stratified into the following groups based on the risk of malnutrition: normal (CONUT score, 0-1), mild (CONUT score, 2-4), moderate (CONUT score, 5-8), and severe (CONUT score, 9-12) [13].

Outcome assessment

The primary outcome was to investigate the association between preoperative malnutrition, assessed using the nutritional index, and 3-year mortality after LT. The secondary outcome was to identify the risk factors for mortality and the most relevant nutritional index for predicting outcomes in patients undergoing LT.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were not normally distributed when assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and expressed as median (interquartile range). Dichotomous variables were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test and expressed as absolute number (percentage).
The Kaplan-Meier survival curve along with the log-rank test was used to investigate the association between preoperative malnutrition assessed by nutritional indices and postoperative mortality. Mortality was assessed according to the presence and severity of malnutrition as classified by the nutritional indices. Data of deceased and non-deceased patients were compared, and univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify the prognostic factors for mortality. Multivariable Cox analysis was performed by including variables with P < 0.05 in univariable analysis and using backward selection. To avoid multicollinearity, albumin level, body mass index, cholesterol, and lymphocyte count included in the nutritional index calculations were excluded from the multivariable model. In addition, variables included in the MELD calculation (creatinine, bilirubin, and INR) were excluded. Given that the nutritional indices included data on albumin level and lymphocyte count, only one nutritional index was incorporated into the multivariable model. Hazard ratio (HR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 25.0 (SPSS Inc.). Statistical significance was set at P <0.05 for all analyses.

RESULTS

From an initial group of 464 patients, patients aged < 18 years (n = 11), those undergoing re-transplantation (n = 3), and those lacking the necessary data for nutritional assessment (n = 10) were excluded. The remaining 440 patients had no missing data required for preoperative nutritional assessment or postoperative follow-up and were included in the analysis (Fig. 1).

Baseline characteristics

The 3-year postoperative mortality rate was 20.5% (n = 90). The demographics and laboratory findings of overall patients are presented in Table 1.

Preoperative malnutrition and postoperative mortality

The NRI identified 72.7% of patients (n = 320) at risk of malnutrition, categorized as mild (7.3%), moderate (46.4%), and severe (19.1%). The PNI identified 66.1% of patients (n = 291) at risk, with 16.1% classified as moderate and 50% as severe. The CONUT score identified 97.3% of patients at risk (n = 428), with 20.2% classified as mild, 51.6% as moderate, and 25.5% as severe (Fig. 2).
The prevalence of malnutrition was significantly higher in deceased than in non-deceased patients when assessed using the NRI (83.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.011) and PNI (77.8% vs. 63.1%, P = 0.009), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed when assessed using the CONUT score (P = 0.075). The NRI was significantly lower in deceased patients than in non-deceased ones (90.9 [83.1-97.1] vs. 93.9 [86.4-101.4], P = 0.004), whereas the PNI and CONUT score did not significantly differ between the two groups (P = 0.072 and P = 0.196, respectively) (Table 2).
The Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed a significant association between preoperative malnutrition status (assessed by the NRI ≤ 100) and mortality (log-rank test, P = 0.012) (Fig. 3A). Mortality was also associated with the severity of malnutrition, which progressively increased from normal to mild, moderate, and severe malnutrition (log-rank test, P = 0.049) (Fig. 3B). Furthermore, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves indicated an increase in mortality with the presence and severity of malnutrition risk, as assessed by the PNI (log-rank test, P = 0.010 and 0.031, respectively). However, neither the presence nor the severity of malnutrition, as assessed by the CONUT score, was associated with mortality (log-rank test, P = 0.093 and 0.075, respectively).

Risk factors for mortality

Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for mortality. In the univariable Cox analysis, a 1-unit increase in the NRI and PNI was associated with a decrease in mortality (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = 0.002; and HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-1.00; P = 0.043, respectively). However, the CONUT score was not significantly associated with mortality. To prevent multicollinearity, we excluded body mass index, lymphocyte count, and total bilirubin from the multivariable Cox analysis, as they shared variables required for calculating NRI, PNI, and MELD score, respectively. Excluding these three variables, all variables with P < 0.05 in univariable Cox analysis were included in the multivariable analysis. In the multivariable Cox analysis, the NRI was an independent risk factor for mortality (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = 0.009), along with preoperative renal replacement therapy, platelet count, and C-reactive protein (Table 3), whereas the PNI was not identified as an independent risk factor for mortality.

Comparison between the malnutrition and normal groups based on the NRI

The demographics and laboratory findings were compared between the malnutrition group (NRI ≤ 100) and the normal group (NRI > 100). The malnutrition group had a lower body mass index, a higher MELD score, and a higher prevalence of alcoholism and cirrhosis than the normal group. Additionally, hemoglobin, platelet, lymphocyte, and cholesterol levels were lower, whereas C-reactive protein and total bilirubin levels were higher in the malnutrition group (Table 4).
Comparison of short-term outcomes after LT based on the presence of preoperative malnutrition risk assessed by the NRI revealed that the malnutrition group had a significantly greater incidence of acute kidney injury (50.6% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.001) than the normal group. The incidences of other complications, including stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and prolonged ventilator care, did not differ between the two groups. The 2-year postoperative mortality rate was higher in the malnutrition group than in the normal group (20.9% vs. 10.8%, P = 0.014) (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

In this retrospective review, the presence and severity of preoperative malnutrition, as assessed using the NRI and PNI, were associated with 3-year mortality after LT. The NRI emerged as an independent risk factor for mortality, along with preoperative renal replacement therapy, platelet count, and C-reactive protein. Notably, the NRI was the only nutritional index identified as a risk factor for mortality. Our findings demonstrated the predictive value of the NRI for mortality, highlighting it as the nutritional index most strongly associated with mortality in patients undergoing LT.

Malnutrition in patients undergoing liver transplantation

The etiology of malnutrition in patients with end-stage liver disease is attributed to factors such as decreased caloric intake, reduced nutrient absorption, and hypercatabolism [2]. Extensive injury and stress response during surgery further exacerbate nutritional deterioration in these vulnerable patients through sympathetic hyperactivation, a surge in catecholamines, and systemic inflammatory response [3]. Malnutrition increases susceptibility to infection and surgical insult. Patients with pre-transplant malnutrition exhibited a higher incidence of infection, longer ICU stay, and shorter lifespan than those of well-nourished patients [4-6].
Nevertheless, standardized methods for nutritional assessment in patients undergoing LT and their routine clinical implementation have not yet been established. Scoring systems integrating clinical and dietary data, laboratory findings, and anthropometric measurements have been used to assess the nutritional status of patients undergoing LT [5,6]. However, these methods, relying on self-assessment of nutrition and diet, may be unreliable or challenging to perform in patients with impaired cognitive function or consciousness [6,7]. Furthermore, the significant time and costs required for the evaluation process hinder their routine application as part of the preoperative assessment.

The NRI, PNI, and CONUT score and mortality

The NRI, PNI, and CONUT score are objective nutritional indices based on laboratory parameters (serum albumin, cholesterol, and lymphocyte count) and body weight. Their prognostic value for mortality and morbidity has been well-documented in various surgical and clinical contexts, including patients undergoing liver surgery [10,14,15]. Nevertheless, few studies have reported their application in patients undergoing LT [16,17]. In the present study, we compared three objective nutritional indices for their association with 3-year postoperative mortality. The NRI and PNI were significantly associated with mortality, whereas the CONUT score was not. Mortality rates significantly increased with the presence and severity of malnutrition, as assessed using the NRI and PNI. The NRI showed a significant difference between the deceased and non-deceased patients, whereas the PNI did not. In the multivariable Cox analysis, the NRI was identified as an independent prognostic factor for mortality, whereas the PNI was not. These results indicate that NRI is the most reliable nutritional index for predicting mortality after LT.
Albumin, cholesterol, and lymphocyte count, which are the bases for calculating nutritional indices, are representative laboratory indicators of nutrition. A decrease in these values is associated with increased mortality and morbidity [18-20]. Liver diseases significantly impact these parameters: patient undergoing LT commonly present low serum albumin levels due to malnutrition and decreased hepatic function [21,22], and serum cholesterol levels decrease with the severity of cirrhosis and progression of liver damage [23]. In this study, albumin and cholesterol levels did not differ between deceased and non-deceased patients, but lymphocyte counts were significantly lower in deceased patients than in non-deceased patients (Supplementary Table 1). Albumin was included in all three nutritional indices, whereas lymphocyte count was a part of the PNI and CONUT score, and body weight was included only in the NRI calculation. While the PNI and CONUT score rely solely on laboratory parameters, the NRI integrates both laboratory and anthropometric parameters, reflecting the degree of weight loss. Body weight, whether expressed as the body mass index or a recent change, is a crucial indicator of nutritional status. Despite its limitations in patients with edema, ascites, or disturbances in fluid balance, body weight has been widely used as an integral component in comprehensive nutritional assessments [24,25]. Underweight patients were at a higher risk of increased mortality and complications, including hemorrhage and cerebrovascular accidents [26,27]. In patients with cirrhosis, the incidence of ascites did not differ between weight groups; however, the underweight group had a higher mortality than that of the normal weight and overweight groups [28]. This highlights the impact of body weight on outcomes, despite its potential limitations.
The MELD score has been reported to be associated with post-transplant survival [29]. In this study, the MELD score was associated with mortality but was not an independent prognostic predictor. The MELD score was originally designed to predict survival over the next 3 months and determine the urgency of transplantation [30], and not to assess post-transplant mortality risk.

Prognostic value of the NRI

The prognostic value of the NRI has been reported in various clinical settings, including liver disease [31,32], sepsis [33], and hemodialysis [32]. In a study investigating the concordance among the methods of nutritional assessment in patients expecting LT, the NRI was identified as the most valid method for detecting malnutrition status, with the highest positive likelihood ratio.[10] Our study aligns with this previous study, reinforcing that the NRI is the index most strongly associated with mortality after LT. Additionally, a recent study compared the prognostic values of the NRI, PNI, and CONUT score regarding 30-day postoperative mortality and complications after LT [34]. Although that study simultaneously included three nutritional indices with strong collinearity in a multivariable Cox model, which might raise concerns regarding potential conflicts between parameters and statistical issues, the NRI exhibited the highest predictive values for 30-day mortality. In our study, three distinct multivariable models were established, each incorporating only one nutritional index at a time. Ultimately, only the NRI was selected as an independent prognostic factor for mortality. Based on these findings, the NRI is the most reliable objective nutritional index for predicting both short-term and long-term mortality following LT.

Strengths and limitations of the present study

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare three objective nutritional indices and determine the most relevant nutritional index for predicting long-term mortality after LT. No patient in the cohort had missing data necessary for nutritional assessment and 3-year postoperative mortality, which was the primary endpoint of the present study. This study had two potential limitations. First, it adopted a retrospective design and was conducted at a single center in a homogeneous geographical location, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results to other countries and multiethnic populations. Second, despite our efforts to avoid multicollinearity and account for potential confounders, the interaction between liver function and nutritional status may still have influenced the outcomes. These relationships could affect the study results and should be considered when interpreting our findings. Last, although our findings support the validity of preoperative nutritional evaluation, we could not establish the causality. Further studies are warranted to determine whether preoperative nutritional interventions improve postoperative outcomes.
In conclusion, the presence and severity of preoperative malnutrition, as assessed by the NRI, were associated with higher 3-year postoperative mortality in patients undergoing LT. Among the three objective nutritional indices, only the NRI was identified as an independent prognostic factor for mortality. Considering these findings, routine evaluation before LT should incorporate NRI assessment as it provides crucial information to enhance risk stratification and overall assessment.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary data is available at https://doi.org/10.17085/apm.24045.
Supplementary Table 1.
Comparison between non-deceased and deceased patients
apm-24045-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Notes

FUNDING

This research was supported by grant No. KSTA-2022-001 from the Korean Society of Transplantation Anesthesiologists.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Writing - original draft: Eun Jung Kim, Jin Ha Park, Soo Yeon Kim, Jin Sun Cho. Writing - review & editing: Jin Sun Cho. Conceptualization: Eun Jung Kim, Jin Sun Cho. Data curation: Jin Ha Park. Soo Yeon Kim, Jin Sun Cho. Formal analysis: Eun Jung Kim, Jin Ha Park, Soo Yeon Kim, Jin Sun Cho. Methodology: Eun Jung Kim, Soo Yeon Kim, Jin Sun Cho. Funding acquisition: Jin Sun Cho. Investigation: Eun Jung Kim, Jin Ha Park, Soo Yeon Kim, Jin Sun Cho. Supervision: Jin Sun Cho.

Fig. 1.
Flow chart. NRI: Nutritional Risk Index, PNI: Prognostic Nutritional Index, CONUT: Controlling Nutritional Status.
apm-24045f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Preoperative malnutrition risk according to the nutritional indices. NRI: Nutritional Risk Index, PNI: Prognostic Nutritional Index, CONUT: Controlling Nutritional Status.
apm-24045f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Kaplan-Meier survival curve according to the presence (A) and severity (B) of preoperative malnutrition assessed using the NRI. NRI: Nutritional Risk Index.
apm-24045f3.jpg
Table 1.
Demographic, Clinical Data, and Laboratory Findings
Variable All (n = 440)
Age (yr) 57 (51, 63)
M 309 (70.2)
Body mass index (kg/m2) 23.9 (21.8, 26.4)
Morbidity
 Hypertension 117 (26.6)
 Diabetes mellitus 139 (31.6)
 Cerebral vascular disease 5 (1.1)
 Chronic kidney disease 26 (5.9)
 Renal replacement therapy 45 (10.2)
MELD score 12.8 (8.3, 22.0)
Etiology for end-stage liver diseases
 Viral 243 (55.2)
 Alcoholic 142 (32.3)
 Biliary 20 (4.5)
 Cancer 217 (49.3)
 Cirrhosis 315 (71.6)
 Other diseases 51 (11.6)
Deceased donor 84 (19.1)
Hemoglobin (g/dl) 10.4 (8.7, 12.2)
Platelet count 72 (53, 105)
Glucose (mg/dl) 110 (92, 144)
Creatinine (mg/dl) 0.78 (0.62, 1.02)
eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m²) 24.5 (13.7, 57.9)
C-reactive protein (mg/L) 3.8 (1.3, 13.2)
Total bilirubin (mg/dl) 1.9 (1.0, 6.0)
Alpha-fetoprotein (ng/dl) 4.3 (2.6, 10.2)
Albumin (g/dl) 3.1 (2.8, 3.6)
Total cholesterol (mg/dl) 115.0(85.0, 143.8)
Lymphocyte (/mm3) 710 (460, 1,068)

Values are presented as median (1Q, 3Q) or number (%). MELD: Model for End-Stage Liver Disease, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Table 2.
Preoperative Nutritional Indices
Nutritional index All (n = 440) Non-deceased (n = 350, 79.5%) Deceased (n = 90, 20.5%) P value
NRI 93.4 (85.8, 100.9) 93.9 (86.4, 101.4) 90.9 (83.1, 97.1) 0.004
 At malnutrition risk (≤ 100) 320 (72.7) 245 (70.0) 75 (83.3) 0.011
 Malnutrition severity
  Normal (> 100) 120 (27.3) 105 (30.0) 15 (16.7) 0.051
  Mild (97.5-100) 32 (7.3) 26 (7.4) 6 (6.7)
  Moderate (83.5-97.4) 204 (46.4) 158 (45.1) 46 (51.1)
  severe (< 83.5) 84 (19.1) 61 (17.4) 23 (25.6)
PNI 35.0 (31.1, 39.8) 35.2 (31.4, 40.4) 34.0 (30.7, 37.4) 0.072
 At malnutrition risk (≤ 38) 291 (66.1) 221 (63.1) 70 (77.8) 0.009
 Malnutrition severity
  Normal (> 38) 149 (33.9) 129 (36.9) 20 (22.2) 0.026
  Moderate (35-38) 71 (16.1) 52 (14.9) 19 (21.1)
  Severe (<35) 220 (50.0) 169 (48.3) 51 (56.7)
CONUT score 7 (5, 9) 7 (5, 9) 7 (6, 8) 0.196
 At malnutrition risk (≥ 2) 428 (97.3) 338 (96.6) 90 (100.0) 0.075
 Malnutrition severity
  Normal (0-1) 12 (2.7) 12 (3.4) 0 0.064
  Mild (2-4) 89 (20.2) 75 (21.4) 14 (15.6)
  Moderate (5-8) 227 (51.6) 171 (48.9) 56 (62.2)
  Severe (9-12) 112 (25.5) 92 (26.3) 20 (22.2)

Values are presented as median (1Q, 3Q) or number (%).

NRI: Nutritional Risk Index, PNI: Prognostic Nutritional Index, CONUT score: Controlling Nutritional Status score.

Table 3.
Cox Proportional Hazard Model of Mortality after Liver Transplantation
Variable Univariable analysis
Multivariable analysis
HR 95% CI P value HR 95% CI P value
Body mass index (kg/m2) 0.89 0.84-0.95 < 0.001
Renal replacement therapy 3.27 1.99-5.39 < 0.001 2.53 1.51-4.25 < 0.001
MELD score 1.04 1.02-1.06 < 0.001
Deceased donor 2.51 1.62-3.88 <0.001
Hemoglobin 0.84 0.76-0.92 < 0.001
Platelet count 0.99 0.99-1.00 0.014 0.99 0.99-1.00 0.030
Creatinine (mg/dl) 1.09 0.92-1.29 0.309
C-reactive protein (mg/L) 1.02 1.01-1.02 < 0.001 1.01 1.00-1.02 0.006
Total bilirubin (mg/dl) 1.04 1.02-1.05 < 0.001
Lymphocyte (/mm3) 0.46 0.28-0.77 0.003
Nutritional risk index* 0.97 0.95-0.99 0.002 0.97 0.95-0.99 0.009
Prognostic nutritional index* 0.97 0.94-1.00 0.043

HR: hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, MELD: Model for End-Stage Liver Disease.

*For a one-unit increase in score.

Table 4.
Comparison Between the Normal and Malnutrition Groups Based on the NRI
Variable Normal group (NRI > 100, (n = 120 [27.3]) Malnutrition group (NRI ≤ 100, (n = 320 [72.7]) P value
Age (yr) 58 (51, 62) 57 (50, 63) 0.974
M 84 (70.0) 225 (70.3) 0.949
Body mass index (kg/m2) 26.1 (24.0, 28.7) 23.2 (21.0, 25.2) < 0.001
Morbidity
 Hypertension 40 (33.3) 77 (24.1) 0.05
 Diabetes mellitus 41 (34.2) 98 (30.6) 0.477
 Cerebral vascular disease 3 (2.5) 2 (0.6) 0.098
 Chronic kidney disease 5 (4.2) 21 (6.6) 0.343
 Renal replacement therapy 8 (6.7) 37 (11.6) 0.131
MELD score 8.0 (6.7, 13.0) 14.6 (10.2, 23.6) < 0.001
Etiology for end-stage liver diseases
 Viral 78 (65.0) 165 (51.6) 0.012
 Alcoholic 24 (20.0) 118 (36.9) < 0.001
 Biliary 4 (3.3) 16 (5.0) 0.455
 Cancer 83 (69.2) 134 (41.9) < 0.001
 Cirrhosis 67 (55.8) 248 (77.5) < 0.001
 Other diseases 10 (8.3) 41 (12.8) 0.191
Deceased donor 18 (15.0) 66 (20.6) 0.181
Hemoglobin (g/dl) 12.6 (10.6, 14.1) 9.8 (8.5, 11.2) < 0.001
Platelet count 89 (61, 128) 67 (49, 95) < 0.001
Glucose (mg/dl) 112 (96, 151) 109 (91. 143) 0.258
Creatinine (mg/dl) 0.80 (0.65, 0.99) 0.77 (0.60, 1.09) 0.564
eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m²) 26.9 (14.6, 67.0) 22.9 (13.6, 57.0) 0.819
C-reactive protein (mg/L) 1.6 (0.8, 4.0) 6.1 (1.7, 16.1) < 0.001
Total bilirubin (mg/dl) 1.0 (0.6, 2.1) 2.4 (1.3, 7.9) < 0.001
Alpha-fetoprotein (ng/dl) 4.5 (2.7, 10.0) 4.2 (2.5, 10.4) 0.587
Albumin (g/dl) 3.8 (3.5, 4.1) 3.0 (2.7, 3.3) < 0.001
Total cholesterol (mg/dl) 135.0 (110.3, 162.0) 109.0 (82.0, 136.0) < 0.001
Lymphocyte (/mm3) 980 (633, 1,410) 610 (420, 948) < 0.001

Values are presented as median (1Q, 3Q) or number (%). NRI: Nutritional Risk Index, MELD: model for End-Stage Liver Disease, eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate.

Table 5.
Postoperative Outcomes according to Malnutrition Assessed by the NRI
Outcome Normal (NRI > 100) (n = 120 [27.3]) Malnutrition (NRI ≤ 100) (n = 320 [72.7]) P value
Acute kidney injury 40 (33.3) 162 (50.6) 0.001
Stroke 0 (0.0) 1 (0.3) 0.540
Myocardial infarction 0 (0.0) 4 (1.3) 0.219
Heart failure 1 (0.8) 2 (0.6) 0.813
Prolonged ventilator care (> 48 h) 20 (16.7) 75 (23.4) 0.124
Hemostatic reoperation 6 (5.0) 18 (5.6) 0.797
Intensive care unit stay (d) 4.0 (3.0, 5.0) 4.0 (3.0, 5.0) 0.280
Hospital stay (d) 22.5 (17.0, 32.8) 25.0 (19.0, 38.0) 0.051
1-yr mortality 11 (9.2) 53 (16.6) 0.050
2-yr mortality 13 (10.8) 67 (20.9) 0.014
3-yr mortality 15 (12.5) 75 (23.4) 0.011

Values are presented as number (%) or median (1Q, 3Q).

REFERENCES

1. Merli M, Nicolini G, Angeloni S, Riggio O. Malnutrition is a risk factor in cirrhotic patients undergoing surgery. Nutrition 2002; 18: 978-86.
crossref pmid
2. Zhang QK, Wang ML. The management of perioperative nutrition in patients with end stage liver disease undergoing liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2015; 4: 336-44.
crossref pmid pmc
3. Merli M, Giusto M, Giannelli V, Lucidi C, Riggio O. Nutritional status and liver transplantation. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2011; 1: 190-8.
crossref pmid
4. Figueiredo F, Dickson ER, Pasha T, Kasparova P, Therneau T, Malinchoc M, et al. Impact of nutritional status on outcomes after liver transplantation. Transplantation 2000; 70: 1347-52.
crossref pmid
5. Merli M, Giusto M, Gentili F, Novelli G, Ferretti G, Riggio O, et al. Nutritional status: its influence on the outcome of patients undergoing liver transplantation. Liver Int 2010; 30: 208-14.
crossref pmid
6. Stephenson GR, Moretti EW, El-Moalem H, Clavien PA, Tuttle-Newhall JE. Malnutrition in liver transplant patients: preoperative subjective global assessment is predictive of outcome after liver transplantation. Transplantation 2001; 72: 666-70.
crossref pmid
7. Hammad A, Kaido T, Aliyev V, Mandato C, Uemoto S. Nutritional therapy in liver transplantation. Nutrients 2017; 9: 1126.
crossref pmid pmc
8. Cho JS, Shim JK, Kim KS, Lee S, Kwak YL. Impact of preoperative nutritional scores on 1-year postoperative mortality in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 164: 1140-9.e3.
crossref pmid
9. Kuzu MA, Terzioğlu H, Genç V, Erkek AB, Ozban M, Sonyürek P, et al. Preoperative nutritional risk assessment in predicting postoperative outcome in patients undergoing major surgery. World J Surg 2006; 30: 378-90.
crossref pmid pdf
10. García-Rodríguez MT, López-Calviño B, Piñón-Villar MDC, Otero-Ferreiro A, Suárez-López F, Gómez-Gutiérrez M, et al. Concordance among methods of nutritional assessment in patients included on the waiting list for liver transplantation. J Epidemiol 2017; 27: 469-75.
crossref pmid pmc
11. Section 2: AKI definition. Kidney Int Suppl (2011) 2012; 2: 19-36.
crossref pmid pmc
12. Chen L, Qi Y, Kong X, Su Z, Wang Z, Wang X, et al. Nutritional risk index predicts survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Front Nutr 2021; 8: 786742.
crossref pmid
13. De Ulíbarri JI, González-Madroño A, De Villar NGP, González P, González B, Mancha A, et al. CONUT: a tool for controlling nutritional status. First validation in a hospital population. Nutr Hosp 2005; 20: 38-45.

14. Kanno H, Goto Y, Sasaki S, Fukutomi S, Hisaka T, Fujita F, et al. Geriatric nutritional risk index predicts prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy: a propensity score matching analysis. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 9038.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
15. Fan X, Chen G, Li Y, Shi Z, He L, Zhou D, et al. The preoperative prognostic nutritional index in hepatocellular carcinoma after curative hepatectomy: a retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis. J Invest Surg 2021; 34: 826-33.
crossref pmid
16. Spoletini G, Ferri F, Mauro A, Mennini G, Bianco G, Cardinale V, et al. CONUT score predicts early morbidity after liver transplantation: a collaborative study. Front Nutr 2021; 8: 793885.
crossref pmid
17. Kornberg A, Kaschny L, Kornberg J, Friess H. Preoperative prognostic nutritional index may be a strong predictor of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence following liver transplantation. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 2022; 9: 649-60.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
18. Cabrerizo S, Cuadras D, Gomez-Busto F, Artaza-Artabe I, Marín-Ciancas F, Malafarina V. Serum albumin and health in older people: review and meta analysis. Maturitas 2015; 81: 17-27.
crossref pmid
19. Weverling-Rijnsburger AW, Blauw GJ, Lagaay AM, Knook DL, Meinders AE, Westendorp RG. Total cholesterol and risk of mortality in the oldest old. Lancet 1997; 350: 1119-23.
crossref pmid
20. Gerriets VA, MacIver NJ. Role of T cells in malnutrition and obesity. Front Immunol 2014; 5: 379.
crossref pmid pmc
21. Porrett PM, Baranov E, Ter Horst M. Serum hypoalbuminemia predicts late mortality on the liver transplant waiting list. Transplantation 2015; 99: 158-63.
crossref pmid
22. Mukhtar A, A ELM, Moniem AA, Metini M, Fayez A, Khater YH. The impact of maintaining normal serum albumin level following living related liver transplantation: does serum albumin level affect the course? A pilot study. Transplant Proc 2007; 39: 3214-8.
crossref pmid
23. Ghadir MR, Riahin AA, Havaspour A, Nooranipour M, Habibinejad AA. The relationship between lipid profile and severity of liver damage in cirrhotic patients. Hepat Mon 2010; 10: 285-8.
pmid pmc
24. Duerksen DR, Laporte M, Jeejeebhoy K. Evaluation of nutrition status using the subjective global assessment: malnutrition, cachexia, and sarcopenia. Nutr Clin Pract 2021; 36: 942-56.
crossref pmid pdf
25. Boléo-Tomé C, Monteiro-Grillo I, Camilo M, Ravasco P. Validation of the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) in cancer. Br J Nutr 2012; 108: 343-8.
crossref pmid
26. Orci LA, Majno PE, Berney T, Morel P, Mentha G, Toso C. The impact of wait list body mass index changes on the outcome after liver transplantation. Transpl Int 2013; 26: 170-6.
crossref pmid
27. Reyes JD, et al. Liver transplantation at the extremes of the body mass index. Liver Transpl 2009; 15: 968-77.
crossref pmid pdf
28. Yin Y, Li Y, Shao L, Yuan S, Liu B, Lin S, et al. Effect of body mass index on the prognosis of liver cirrhosis. Front Nutr 2021; 8: 700132.
crossref pmid pmc
29. Bittermann T, Makar G, Goldberg DS. Early post-transplant survival: Interaction of MELD score and hospitalization status. J Hepatol 2015; 63: 601-8.
crossref pmid pmc
30. Ritschl PV, Wiering L, Dziodzio T, Jara M, Kruppa J, Schoeneberg U, et al. The effects of MELD-based liver allocation on patient survival and waiting list mortality in a country with a low donation rate. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 1929.
crossref pmid pmc
31. Xu J, Zhou X, Zheng C. The geriatric nutritional risk index independently predicts adverse outcomes in patients with pyogenic liver abscess. BMC Geriatr 2019; 19: 14.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
32. Komatsu M, Okazaki M, Tsuchiya K, Kawaguchi H, Nitta K. Geriatric nutritional risk index is a simple predictor of mortality in chronic hemodialysis patients. Blood Purif 2015; 39: 281-7.
crossref pmid pdf
33. Lee JS, Choi HS, Ko YG, Yun DH. Performance of the geriatric nutritional risk index in predicting 28-day hospital mortality in older adult patients with sepsis. Clin Nutr 2013; 32: 843-8.
crossref pmid
34. Li C, Chen HX, Lai YH. Comparison of different preoperative objective nutritional indices for evaluating 30-d mortality and complications after liver transplantation. World J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 16: 143-54.
crossref pmid pmc


ABOUT
ARTICLE & TOPICS
Article category

Browse all articles >

Topics

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Editorial Office
101-3503, Lotte Castle President, 109 Mapo-daero, Mapo-gu, Seoul 04146, Korea
Tel: +82-2-792-5128    Fax: +82-2-792-4089    E-mail: apm@anesthesia.or.kr                

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Society of Anesthesiologists.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next