Abstract
Objective
General malnutrition usually occurs in critical limb ischemia (CLI) patients because of shortness of appetite and sleeplessness leaded by chronic pain. And amputation frequently is end-point of CLI patients. So the aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of Geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) for predicting amputation in patients with CLI.
Methods
A retrospective study was designed. Demographics, history, comorbidity, and risk factors for peripheral vascular disease of admitted patients, and laboratory study were documented. Patients’ height, weight and BMI were recorded. Amputation was identified as end-point during follow-up. Patients’ amputation-free survival (AFS) was recorded.
Result
172 patients were identified, with mean age 71.98±3.12. Geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) = 90 was taken as cutoff value of high risk of amputation for CLI patients via using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Span of follow-up was 12–48 months. During follow-up, 60 patients (36.04%) received amputation surgery. And analyzed by Cox proportional hazards model, it is found that GNRI was the independent predictive factor for amputation in long term.
Conclusion
This study revealed that GNRI was a reliable and effective predictive marker for AFS. GNRI could identify patients with high risk for amputation in early time.
Introduction
Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is a common disease in old patients, and though there is no scientific data about incidence rate in Chinese people, yet it is up to 0.35% in American, according to retrospective analysis.[1]Thus it is estimated that more than 4.5 million people would be influenced by CLI in China. Because of chronic resting pain, patients usually appear to be of anorexia and sleepless, which leads to general malnutrition[2,3] (it is a common comorbidity in CLI patients). And it is recorded that amputation occurred in more than quarter of patients in one year if no treatment. Moreover, risk factor analysis has revealed that malnutrition is a risk factor [4,5]following smoking, drinking, and diabetic mellitus for CLI. So most of CLI patients suffer from emaciation and amputation, but whether the two indexes have a determined causal link is uncertain.
In recent years, Geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) is universally adopted to evaluate patients’ nutrition condition, which is an effective and simple risk index to present patients’ nutritional risk and has been proved to be a determined predictive index for prognosis in aged, dialysis, cardiovascular patients and healthcare[6–9]. However, GNRI is nearly never adopted to evaluate condition of patients suffering from vascular disease. Moreover, risk stratification in early time becomes more and more important for patients with CLI, because it is useful for clinical decision making and offering in-time and impacted therapy, then improve patients’ life quality.
Therefore, a retrospective study would be conducted to adopt GNRI to evaluate CLI patients’ nutrition condition and predict prognosis.
Patients and methods
Patients included in this study were recruited from Vascular Department of West China Hospital, Sichuan University between Mar.2010 and Jan.2013.
According to the Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus Document on Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC) criteria[10], objective criteria[4]for admitted patients that support the diagnosis of CLI includes an ankle-brachial index of 0.4 or less, an ankle systolic pressure of 50 mm Hg or less, or a toe systolic pressure of 30 mm Hg or less.Moreover, included patients’ ischemic symptoms presented for more than 4 weeks.
Exclusion criteria: a. age<65 years; b. patients with determined evidence of acute limb ischemia and necrosis; c. hyponatremia (<135 mmol/L) and hypernatremia (>145 mmol/L), d. severe hepatic disease and severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance calculated from the Cockroft and Gault formula at <15 mL/min[11]) to rule out non-malnutrition-related modifications in albumin.
GNRI identification
When admission, indexes including demographics (age, gender), physical parameter [eight, weight, body mass index (BMI)], and history (smoking, drug, alcohol abuse), and comorbidity and laboratory studies (albumin, lymphocyte etc) were documented in standardized database by nurses and doctors. Each patient’s treatment process including procedure (like bypass, intervention, angioplasty and amputation) and drugs was recorded. All patients’ nutrition condition was evaluated according to GNRI formula[12]: GNRI = [1.489*albumin (g/L)] +[41.7 *(weight/WLo)], where WLo means ideal weight and was calculated from the Lorentz equations: for men: H—100—[(H—150)/4]; for women: H—100—[(H—150)/2.5](H: height). From these GNRI values, 4 grades of nutrition-related risk was graded according to previous research[12]: high risk (GNRI: <82), moderate risk (GNRI: 82 to <92), low risk (GNRI: 92 to ≤98), and no risk (GNRI: >98).
Discharged patients were followed up by outpatient consultation or call. Each patient had same standard follow-up form and was followed at end of 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months after discharged, then once time per year thereafter. Call follow-up was at the same interval. In follow-up form, ischemic symptom and sign (pain, claudication, necrosis et al) and whether amputated (time and level) was focus. In this study, primary end-point was identified as amputation (major or minor) or 36 months later after discharged.
Ethics
The study does not need the approvement of the Ethics Committee of West China Hospital, Sichuan University.
Analysis method
The effect of GNRI on outcome was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with amputation as the primary variable. The chi-square test was used to perform univariate analysis for categorical variables and student’s T test for continuous variables. Survival analysis was conducted through Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and differences were compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model was conducted in a stepwise fashion. Analysis was performed using SPSS version 16 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). P < .05 was considered significantly different.
Result
215 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. Four patients lost because of death before end-point of follow-up and 43 patients who met exclusion criteria were excluded from final analysis. At last, 172 patients were included into final outcome analysis. Span of follow-up was 12–48 months (mean duration: 35.8 months).
Cutoff value of GNRI selected
After admission, GNRI value was calculated for each included patients. According to GNRI gradation, inclusion patients were divided into 4 groups: high/moderate/low/no risk group (8/60/56/48 respectively)[12]. Number of patients received amputation in 4 groups was 8 (100%), 30(50%), 12 (21.4%) and 10 (20.8%) in high/moderate/low/no risk group respectively. Thus incidence of amputation increases significantly with risk gradation increasing. In another word, AFS in 4 groups was 0, 50%, 78.6%, and 79.2% successively. Overall survival analysis has significant difference between 4 groups (p = 0.001). Survival analysis for the 4 groups was shown in Fig 1.
Fig 1. The graph shows the amputation-free survival (AFS) in High risk (H)/Low risk (L)/Moderate risk (M)/No risk (No) group respectively.
The difference between groups was significant (log-rank test, P < .05).
However, GNRI appeared to have an obvious influence on outcome in continuous fashion. So a cutoff value of GNRI needs to be detracted to better guide clinical practice. ROC curve was used to identify cutoff value and shown in Fig 2. In ROC analysis setting, AFS was set as state variable. c-statistic (area under curve) was 0.705. GNRI = 90 was selected as cutoff value with maximum discriminative power (sensitivity 75%, specificity 63%). 106 patients (61.6%) had GNRI≥90, 66 patients had GNRI<90.
Fig 2. c-statistic (area under curve) = .705.
Independent risk factor identification
According cutoff value (GNRI = 90), patients were divided into two groups: group A (GNRI≥90) group B (GNRI<90). Survival comparison between group A and B was shown in Fig 3. Older patients appeared to have a worse nutrition condition significantly (P = .016) with mean age in group A versus group B: 69.92±2.68 vs 75.27±3.29. Albumin (ALB, 38.72±3.22 vs 35.36±4.75), BMI (22.79±3.19 vs 20.05±2.28), low density lipoprotein (LDL, 2.57±0.69 vs 2.24±0.85) and cholesterol (CHOL, 4.33±0.83 vs3.93±1.18) and diabetic mellitus(DM) had a significant difference (P = .001/.000/.006/.011/.024 respectively) between group A versus group B. Mortality in both groups was 2 (P = .638). Other laboratory test, comorbidity percentage, social status, living condition and Fontaine gradation had no significant difference. Baseline comparison was shown Table 1. Procedure comparison of two groups was shown in Table 2. Amputation rate in group A (GNRI≥90) and B (GNRI<90) was 20.8% and 57.6% respectively and significant difference was found (P < .001). Detail of amputated patients was listed in Table 3.
Fig 3. The graph shows the amputation-free survival (AFS) in group A (GNRI≥90), and group B (GNRI<90), The difference between group A and group B was significant (log-rank test, P < .05).
Table 1. Baseline comparison between group A and B.
| Index | Group A | Group B | P valued |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 69.92±10.68 | 75.27±8.29 | .016 |
| BMI a | 22.79±3.19 | 20.05±2.28 | < .001 |
| ALB | 38.72±3.22 | 35.36±4.75 | .001 |
| LDL | 2.57±0.69 | 2.24±0.85 | .006 |
| CHOL | 4.33±0.83 | 3.93±1.18 | .011 |
| WBC | 8.51±3.75 | 9.44±4.03 | NS |
| K | 3.89±0.45 | 3.90±0.56 | NS |
| CRE | 85.06±27.40 | 82.15±33.51 | NS |
| Neutrophil | 6.27±3.34 | 6.45±2.57 | NS |
| Lymphocyte | 1.57±0.63 | 1.38±0.61 | NS |
| HDL | 1.15±0.32 | 1.13±0.47 | NS |
| TG | 1.56±1.13 | 1.68±1.26 | NS |
| Gender (male/female) | 78/28 | 44/22 | NS |
| Smoking | 62 | 38 | NS |
| Hypertension b | 54 | 42 | NS |
| DM | 24 | 6 | NS |
| Surgery | 56 | 26 | NS |
| Heart disease | 30 | 14 | NS |
| CAD | 14 | 10 | NS |
| Bone disease | 2 | 2 | NS |
| Social statusc | NS | ||
| Bachelor and above | 12 | 8 | |
| Middle school | 76 | 43 | |
| Primary school | 18 | 15 | |
| Living condition | NS | ||
| Nursing home | 21 | 14 | |
| Private home | 85 | 52 | |
| Fontaine gradation | NS | ||
| II | 4 | 2 | |
| III | 70 | 44 | |
| IV | 32 | 20 |
a. Body mass index (BMI), Albumin (ALB), BMI, low density lipoprotein (LDL), cholesterol (CHOL), white blood cell (WBC),potassium (K), creatinine (CRE), high density lipoprotein (HDL), triglyceride (TG), coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetic mellitus (DM).
b. Comorbidity was identified by history mainly.
c. Social status was presented by educational level
d. P < .05 was considered significant different, NS: no significance.
Table 2. Procedure comparison in group A and B.
| Procedure | Group A (GNRI≥90) | Group B (GNRI<90) | P value b |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surgery | 34 | 14 | NS |
| Angioplasty/stent | 20 | 11 | NS |
| Hybrid a | 2 | 1 | NS |
| Conservative | 50 | 40 | NS |
a. Hybrid: surgery combines with angioplasty/stenting
b. P<0.05 was considered significant different, NS: no significance.
Table 3. Amputation comparison between group A and B.
| Group A (GNRI≥90) | Group B (GNRI<90) | P value b | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amputation | 22 | 38 | < .001 |
| AKA a | 1 | 1 | NS |
| BKA | 9 | 13 | .037 |
| Toe | 12 | 24 | < .001 |
a. AKA: above-knee amputation; BKA: below-knee amputation.
b. P<0.05 was considered significant different, NS: no significance.
Risk factors for CLI patients: age, albumin, BMI, DM and GNRI, LDL, CHOL were included into multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazards model). Age, GNRI and albumin were independent predictive factors for amputation (hazard ratios [95% confidence interval], 1.050 [1.018,1.083],P = .002;0.953 [0.916, 0.991], P = .016; 0.923 [0.862, 0.988], P = .021 respectively). It is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Multivariate analysis of factors affecting overall amputation in patients with critical limb ischemia.
| Index | Hazard ratio | 95% confidence interval | P value b |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.050 | 1.018,1.083 | .002 |
| GNRI a | 0.953 | 0.916, 0.991 | .016 |
| ALB | 0.923 | 0.862, 0.988 | .021 |
| BMI/DM/LDL/CHOL | NS |
a. Geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), albumin (ALB), body mass index (BMI), low density lipoprotein (LDL), cholesterol (CHOL), diabetes mellitus (DM).
b. P < .05 was considered significant different, NS: no significance.
Discussion
This study shows that GNRI is an effective and simple risk stratification marker for patients presenting with CLI. Decreased GNRI (<90) represents a high risk for amputation.
It is said that major lower limbs amputation [above-the-knee amputation (AKA) or below-the-knee amputation (BKA)] at 1 year occur in approximate 20% of untreated CLI patients.[13–15] In this study, overall amputation rate is 34.9%, and in group A (GNRI≥90) and B (GNRI<90) was 20.8% and 57.6% respectively. Moreover, it is revealed in Table 3 that CLI patients with wore nutritional condition (in Group B) intend to have minor amputation (BKA and toe amputation). It is an obvious tendency that incidence of amputation would be higher (a worse prognosis) in patients with a worse nutrition condition. This tendency is in accordance with outcome in other fields, like nephrology, postoperative management and oncology etc. [6,9,16,17]
Aged patients easily suffer from malnutrition[18], especially when aged patients present with CLI, because of ischemic rest pain and sleeplessness, which often is classically described as a burning pain in the joint of the foot and toes that is worse at night when the patient is in bed, incidence rate of malnutrition is relatively high[2,3]. In this study, patients in group B (GNRI<90) are older than in group A (GNRI≥90), naturally older patients have a worse nutrition condition. Therefore, variable of age could predict prognosis in CLI patients via affecting nutrition condition. And albumin is a crucial index for nutrition condition and important factor for GNRI formula conduction. So variable of albumin also affects nutrition condition to predict prognosis in this study. In all, essence of three independent risk factors is nutrition condition, which is evaluated by GNRI.
Moreover, GNRI is a simple and effective marker to identify patients with nutrition risk, which has been approved to be an independent predictive index for prognosis in dialysis patients.[6,16] Though GNRI is nearly firstly used to predict prognosis in CLI patients, and cutoff value is found, yet unfortunately there is no randomized controlled trial (RCT) to confirm this result. So a RCT: evaluating CLI patients’ long-term prognosis with or without nutrition support will be designed in our institution to confirm this outcome.
In previous researches [19–22], revascularization procedure (surgery and angioplasty/stenting) could have a determined better prognosis than conservative therapy. However, procedure percentage (48.8%) is relative low for CLI patients in our institution, especially in group B (GNRI<90, 36.4%). CLI patients in our institution usually suffer from extremely severe ischemia and pain when admitted or transferred from local hospitals. After long-term exhaustion, patients usually suffer from severe general malnutrition, which leads to a weak tolerance for procedure. That is why relative high proportion of CLI patients received non-procedure therapy. Nutrition support may enhance patients’ tolerance for procedure, which is also beneficial for patients. Furthermore, in recent research [23], it was approved that underweight patients with CLI have an extremely poor prognosis. And low BMI was identified as an independent predictor of a poor prognosis in patients with CLI. That was similar to the conclusion in the present study.
Risk stratification utilizing simple clinical data to identify patients with high or low risk is meaningful in clinical practice. In this study, GNRI is adopted to evaluate and grade patients, but which is not designed according to vascular disease [12]. If an exact formula is calculated for vascular disease specifically, a more accurate evaluation could be expected to inform clinical practice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, GNRI is an effective predictive marker for AFSin patients presenting with CLI in long term. Patients with GNRI<90 are easier to suffer from amputation, especially minor amputation compared with GNRI≥90. Moreover, GNRI could identify patients with high risk for amputation in early time, and if patients with GNRI<90 could have in-time nutrition support, AFS may be longer, even avoid amputation, but which needs further research to confirm.
Data Availability
Due to ethical restrictions, clinical data are available upon request. Please contact Jichun Zhao (hxzhao9@163.com).
Funding Statement
These authors have no support or funding to report.
References
- 1.Nehler MR, Duval S, Diao L, Annex BH, Hiatt WR, Rogers K, et al. (2014) Epidemiology of peripheral arterial disease and critical limb ischemia in an insured national population. J Vasc Surg 60(3): 686–695. 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.03.290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Claudina P, Amaral T, Dinis da Gama A (2010) [Nutritional status of patients with critical ischemia of the lower extremities.]. Rev Port Cir Cardiotorac Vasc 17: 239–244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Zhang JQ, Curran T, McCallum JC, Wang L, Wyers MC, Hamdan AD, et al. (2014) Risk factors for readmission after lower extremity bypass in the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program. J Vasc Surg 59: 1331–1339. 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.12.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Santilli JD, Santilli SM (1999) Chronic critical limb ischemia: diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. Am Fam Physician 59: 1899–1908. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cheng SW, Ting AC, Lau H, Wong J (2000) Survival in patients with chronic lower extremity ischemia: a risk factor analysis. Ann Vasc Surg 14: 158–165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Panichi V, Cupisti A, Rosati A, Di Giorgio A, Scatena A, Menconi O, et al. (2014) Geriatric nutritional risk index is a strong predictor of mortality in hemodialysis patients: data from the Riscavid cohort. J Nephrol 27: 193–201. 10.1007/s40620-013-0033-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kinugasa Y, Kato M, Sugihara S, Hirai M, Yamada K, Yanagihara K, et al. (2013) Geriatric nutritional risk index predicts functional dependency and mortality in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circ J 77: 705–711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Baumeister SE, Fischer B, Doring A, Koenig W, Zierer A, John J, et al. (2011) The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index predicts increased healthcare costs and hospitalization in a cohort of community-dwelling older adults: results from the MONICA/KORA Augsburg cohort study, 1994–2005. Nutrition 27: 534–542. 10.1016/j.nut.2010.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lee JS, Choi HS, Ko YG, Yun DH (2013) Performance of the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index in predicting 28-day hospital mortality in older adult patients with sepsis. Clin Nutr 32: 843–848. 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Dormandy JA, Nehler MR, Harris KA, Fowkes FG (2007) Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II). J Vasc Surg 45 Suppl S: S5–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Gonzalez-Fajardo JA, Fernandez L, Alvarez T, Aguirre B, Ramos G, Vaquero C (1996) Protective effect of a platelet-activating factor antagonist (WEB-2086) in postischemic renal failure. Ann Vasc Surg 10: 16–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bouillanne O, Morineau G, Dupont C, Coulombel I, Vincent JP, Nicolis I, et al. (2005) Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index: a new index for evaluating at-risk elderly medical patients. Am J Clin Nutr 82: 777–783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Brass EP, Anthony R, Dormandy J, Hiatt WR, Jiao J, Nakanishi A, et al. (2006) Parenteral therapy with lipo-ecraprost, a lipid-based formulation of a PGE1 analog, does not alter six-month outcomes in patients with critical leg ischemia. J Vasc Surg 43: 752–759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Chung J, Timaran DA, Modrall JG, Ahn C, Timaran CH, Kirkwood ML, et al. (2013) Optimal medical therapy predicts amputation-free survival in chronic critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg 58: 972–980. 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.03.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Lantis JC 2nd, Boone D, Lee L, Mendes D, Benvenisty A, Todd G (2011) The effect of percutaneous intervention on wound healing in patients with mixed arterial venous disease. Ann Vasc Surg 25: 79–86. 10.1016/j.avsg.2010.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kang SH, Cho KH, Park JW, Yoon KW, Do JY (2013) Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index as a prognostic factor in peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int 33: 405–410. 10.3747/pdi.2012.00018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kitagawa Y, Kawabata Y, Fujishiro K, Fukata S (2014) Postoperative nutritional evaluation using geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) for aged patients with pancreatocoduodenectomy. J Geriatr Oncol 5 Suppl 1: S12–13. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Doumit JH, Nasser RN, Hanna DR (2014) Nutritional and health status among nursing home residents in Lebanon: comparison across gender in a national cross sectional study. BMC Public Health 14: 629 10.1186/1471-2458-14-629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ignatovich IN, Kondratenko GG, Sergeev GG, Kornievich SN (2012) [Revascularization surgery in the treatment of the diabetic foot syndrome]. Khirurgiia (Mosk): 38–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kim SY, Min SK, Ahn S, Min SI, Ha J, Kim SJ (2012) Long-term outcomes after revascularization for advanced popliteal artery entrapment syndrome with segmental arterial occlusion. J Vasc Surg 55: 90–97. 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.06.107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Koch M, Trapp R, Hepp W (2007) Impact of femoropopliteal bypass surgery on the survival and amputation rate of end-stage renal disease patients with critical limb ischemia. Med Klin (Munich) 102: 107–111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Kumar BN, Gambhir RP (2011) Critical limb ischemia-need to look beyond limb salvage. Ann Vasc Surg 25: 873–877. 10.1016/j.avsg.2011.05.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Murata N, Soga Y, Iida O, Yamauchi Y, Hirano K, Kawasaki D, et al. (2015) Complex relationship of body mass index with mortality in patients with critical limb ischemia undergoing endovascular treatment. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 49: 297–305. 10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Due to ethical restrictions, clinical data are available upon request. Please contact Jichun Zhao (hxzhao9@163.com).