Abstract
Objective
In this study, we evaluated mini nutritional assessment (MNA) as a tool for the assessment of the nutritional status of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD).
Methods
This prospective cross-sectional study was done from February 2021 till August 2021 on ESRD patients on MHD at our center. Nutritional status was assessed by using MNA score which evaluates four different aspects: anthropometric measures (body mass index [BMI], weight loss, mid-arm and mid-calf circumferences); general assessment (lifestyle, medications, mobility, and signs of depression); short dietary assessment (number of meals, food, and fluid intake) and subjective assessment (self-perception of food and nutrition).
Results
Out of 195 study subjects, 127 (65.1%) were males and 68 (34.9%) were females. Most women were stay-at-home mothers (57, 29.2% overall and 83.8% among all women), while most men owned their own businesses (44, 22.6% overall). The mean age was 51.2±14 years and the mean duration of hemodialysis was 4.6±4.1 years. Most of our patients belonged to the middle socioeconomic group (110, 56.6%). By using MNA, we found that most are at risk of developing malnutrition (112, 57.4%); however, only 9 (4.6%) patients are malnourished. In our study group, most malnourished patients belonged to the age group of >65 years (5, 56.6%). BMI was found to be significantly associated with MNA (p <0.001).
Conclusion
MNA is an easy and reliable bedside tool that can be used in ESRD patients on MHD for nutritional assessment. This is helpful in nutritional planning and the prevention of malnutrition.
Keywords: maintenance hemodialysis, end-stage renal disease (esrd), chronic kidney disease (ckd), chronic kidney disease (ckd), nutrition status, mini nutritional assessment
Introduction
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health problem, affecting over 109.9 million people from high-income countries (48.3 million men and 61.7 million women) and 387.5 million from lower-middle-income countries (177.4 million men and 210.1 million women) [1]. With the increasing prevalence of CKD, it is estimated that more individuals will require renal replacement therapies (dialysis or kidney transplant) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD).
Protein energy wasting (PEW) is a frequent finding in patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) with a global prevalence of 28-54% [2], associated with high morbidity and mortality [3,4]. It adversely affects patients' quality of life (QOL) [5,6]. Multiple factors contribute to the development of PEW in MHD patients including losses of amino acids and nutrients, dialysis-induced muscle catabolism, increased energy expenditure, resistance to anabolic hormones, ineffective correction of metabolic acidosis, inadequate dialysis, poor appetite, taste alterations, suboptimal dietary intake, insulin resistance, psychological factors, decreased functional capacity, depression and lack of social support [7].
Nutritional assessment is an important task for providing proper dietary advice to MHD patients. Different methods of nutritional assessment are used include anthropometric measurements (body mass index [BMI], triceps skin fold thickness [TSFT], mid-arm muscle circumference [MAMC] and hand grip strength [HGS]), bio-impedance, subjective global assessment (SGA) and mini nutritional assessment score (MNA) [8,9]. MNA is a self-reported questionnaire-based validated tool for assessing malnutrition, initially used in elderly patients [10]. In a few studies, it was used for nutritional assessment in elderly MHD patients and was found to be reliable [11,12]. Previously we did a study on nutritional assessment using bedside anthropometric measurements [13].
Despite being an important part of management of ESRD patients on MHD, nutritional status is a neglected area, which need proper assessment. Prevention and timely management of malnutrition should be a part of treatment regimen of nephrologist and renal nutritionist. The purpose of this study is to evaluate effectiveness of MNA as nutritional assessment tool in MHD patients. We also compared MNA score with anthropometric measurement to ensure its effectiveness in MHD patients.
Materials and methods
After approval from the hospital ethical review committee (ERC Reference No. 116-NEPH-022021), we conducted a prospective cross-sectional study at The Kidney Centre Postgraduate Training Institute Karachi, Pakistan (TKC-PGTI). We included adult ESRD patients on MHD three times a week with each session lasting for four hours at our center. Patients with speech and cognitive impairment were excluded from the study.
After getting written informed consent, demographic data (age, gender, occupation, presence of diabetes mellitus, and dialysis details like duration, frequency) was collected on a preformed proforma. One of the co-primary investigators (Co-PI) did anthropometric measurements (height, weight, BMI), mid-arm circumference (MAC), calf circumference (CC), and tricuspid skin fold thickness (TSFT) and asked questions from MNA, at the bedside before the hemodialysis session. BMI was calculated by dividing body weight by the square of height (Kg/m2). MAC and CC were measured using a measuring tape. TSFT was measured using caliper. The mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC) was calculated using the following formula: MAMC = MAC (cm)-π TSFT (mm)/10. The BMI and MAMC were evaluated with the reference values given by the World Health Organization (WHO). The normal range of BMI is 18.5 to 24.5 Kg/m2, of MAMC in male=25.3 mm, female=23.2 mm and TSFT in male=12.5, female=16.5 mm respectively [14]. A MAMC of less than 90% indicates protein depletion; greater than 90% indicates adequate or ample protein reserves [15].
Mini nutritional assessment (MNA) contains 18 items and it evaluates four different aspects; anthropometric measurements (BMI, weight loss, mid-arm and mid-calf circumferences); general assessment (lifestyle, medications, mobility and signs of depression); short dietary assessment (number of meals, food and fluid intake) and subjective assessment (self-perception of food and nutrition). Patients were divided into three groups according to the score. Scores less than 17 out of 30 are considered malnourished, 17-23.5 are at the risk of malnutrition, 24 and above are considered normal [10].
Statistical Analyses were performed by using IBM SPSS version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Continuous variables were expressed in mean ± STD, while frequencies and percentages were obtained for categorical variables. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was applied to see any associations between variables. A p-value of less than or equal to 0.05 was considered significant.
Results
We enrolled 195 patients in our study of which 127 (65.1%) were males and 68 (34.9%) were females. Among our study group, most women were stay-at-home mothers (57, 29.2% overall and 83.8% among all women), while most men owned their own businesses (44, 22.6%). The mean age was 51.2±14 years and the mean duration of hemodialysis was 4.6±4.1 years. Seventy-five (38.5%) had diabetes mellitus. Most of our patients belonged to the middle socioeconomic group (110, 56.6%) (Table 1).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of patients (n=195) .
| Baseline Characteristics | n (%) | |
| Socioeconomic status | Lower | 35 (17.9) |
| Middle | 110 (56.5) | |
| Upper | 50 (25.6) | |
| Occupation | Un-employed | 35 (17.9) |
| Stay-home mother | 57 (29.2) | |
| Retired | 37 (19) | |
| Businessman | 44 (22.6) | |
| Employed | 22 (11.3) | |
Table 2 shows the frequency of response to subjective assessment and malnutrition status as per MNA. Most of our patients live independently (192, 98.5%) and take more than three drugs/day (190, 97.4%). Out of 195 patients, 13 (6.7%) had acute psychological stress in the past three months. We found out that most of our study population were at risk of developing malnutrition (112, 57.4%); however, only 9 (4.6%) patients were malnourished.
Table 2. Frequency of response and malnutrition status as per MNA .
| Response and nutritional assessment according to mini nutritional assessment (MNA) | n (%) | |
| Food intake decreased over the last three months | No | 160 (82.1) |
| Moderate | 33 (16.9) | |
| Severe | 2 (1) | |
| Weight loss in last three months | No | 153 (78.5) |
| 1-3 kg | 37 (19) | |
| > 3 kg | 5 (2.6) | |
| Mobility | Fully active | 134 (68.7) |
| Some limitations | 60 (30.8) | |
| Bed or chair bound | 1 (0.5) | |
| Neuropsychological disease | No | 150 (76.9) |
| Mild dementia | 44 (22.6) | |
| Severe dementia or depression | 1 (0.5) | |
| Number of meal /day | 2 | 45 (23.1) |
| 3 | 150 (76.9) | |
| Selected consumption of protein intake | No | 136 (69.7) |
| 2 servings | 52 (26.7) | |
| 3 servings | 7 (3.6) | |
| Fluid/day | < 3 cups | 35 (17.9) |
| 3-5 cups | 84 (43.1) | |
| >5 cups | 76 (39) | |
| Mode of feeding | Self-feed without difficulty | 173 (88.7) |
| Self-feed with difficulty | 18 (9.2) | |
| Unable to feed by himself | 4 (2.1) | |
| Self-view of nutritional status | No problem | 102 (52.3) |
| Uncertain | 66 (33.8) | |
| Views self as malnourished | 27 (13.8) | |
| Self-view as compared to people of same age | Not as good as others | 50 (25.6) |
| As good as others | 114 (58.5) | |
| As better than others | 31 (15.9) | |
| Total assessment by using MNA | Normal (24-30 points) | 74 (37.9) |
| At risk of malnutrition (17-23.5 points) | 112 (57.4) | |
| Malnourished (< 17 points) | 9 (4.6) | |
Anthropometric measurements are illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3. Anthropometric measurements .
| Anthropometric measurements | n (%) | |
| Body mass index (BMI) | < 19 | 31 (15.9) |
| 19-20.9 | 16 (8.2) | |
| 21-22.9 | 43 (22.1) | |
| ≥ 23 | 105 (53.8) | |
| Mid-arm circumference (MAC) in cm | < 21 | 2 (1) |
| 21-21.9 | 5 (2.6) | |
| ≥ 22 | 188 (96.40) | |
| Calf circumference (CC) in cm | < 31 | 116 (59.50) |
| ≥ 31 | 79 (40.5) | |
In the study group, gender was not associated with MNA score (p=0.839), while age was significantly associated with MNA (p=0.004). We observed that most malnourished patients belonged to the age group of >65 years (5, 56.6%). BMI was also significantly associated with MNA (p<0.001). Among all malnourished patients, the patients with BMI of <19 were 5 (55.6%), on the other hand, most of the patients who were normal according to MNA, belonged to a BMI group of ≥23 (52, 70.3%). Similarly, MAMC, MAC, and CC were also significantly associated with MNA (p<0.05). Diabetes mellitus, social, and other demographic factors were not associated with the nutritional status of our patients (Table 4).
Table 4. Subgroup analysis of study population according to MNA and anthropometric measurements .
Values are given in terms of n (%)
| Variables | Malnourished 74 (37.9) | At the risk of malnourishment 112 (57.4) | Normal 9 (4.6) | p-value | |
| Gender | Male | 6 (66.7) | 71 (63.4) | 50 (67.6) | 0.839 |
| Female | 3 (33.3) | 41(36.6) | 24 (32.4) | ||
| Age | ≤ 35 years | 1 (11.1) | 22 (19.6) | 14 (18.9) | 0.004 |
| 36-50 years | 2 (22.2) | 24 (41.1) | 26 (35.1) | ||
| 51-65 years | 1 (11.1) | 46 (41.1) | 29 (39.2) | ||
| > 65 years | 5 (55.6) | 20 (17.9) | 5 (6.5) | ||
| Occupation | No job | 2 (22.2) | 20 (17.9) | 13 (17.6) | 0.202 |
| House wife | 1 (11.1) | 35 (23.2) | 21 (28.4) | ||
| Retired | 3 (33.3) | 26 (23.2) | 8 (10.8) | ||
| Business | 3 (33.3) | 21(18.8) | 20 (27) | ||
| On job | 0 | 10 (8.9) | 12 (16.2) | ||
| Diabetes mellitus | Yes | 2 (22.2) | 48 (42.9) | 25 (33.8) | 0.272 |
| No | 7 (77.8) | 64 (57.1) | 49 (66.2) | ||
| Lives independently | Yes | 9 (100) | 110 (98.2) | 73 (98.6) | 0.999 |
| No | 0 | 2(1.8) | 1(1.4) | ||
| Socioeconomic status | Lower | 1 (11.1) | 21(18.8) | 13 (17.6) | 0.973 |
| Middle | 5 (55.6) | 63 (56.3) | 42 (56.8) | ||
| Upper | 3 (33.3) | 28 (25) | 19 (25.7) | ||
| Diabetes mellitus | Yes | 2 (22.2) | 48 (42.9) | 25 (33.8) | 0.272 |
| No | 7 (77.8) | 64 (57.1) | 49 (66.2) | ||
| Body mass index (BMI) | < 19 | 5 (55.6) | 23 (20.5) | 3 (4.1) | <0.001 |
| 19-20.9 | 1 (11.1) | 12 (10.7) | 3 (4.1) | ||
| 21-22.9 | 1 (11.1) | 26 (23.2) | 16 (21.6) | ||
| ≥ 23 | 2 (22.2) | 51 (45.5) | 52 (70.3) | ||
| Mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC) | < 90 | 6 (66.9) | 43 (38.4) | 18 (24.3) | 0.016 |
| ≥ 90 | 3 (33.3) | 69 (61.6) | 56 (75.7) | ||
| Mid-arm circumference (MAC) | < 21 | 0 | 2 (1.8) | 0 | 0.036 |
| 21 - 22.9 | 2 (22.2) | 2 (1.8) | 1 (1.4) | ||
| ≥ 22 | 7 (77.8) | 108 (96.4) | 73 (98.6) | ||
| Calf circumference (CC) | < 31 | 7 (77.8) | 78 (69.6) | 31 (41.9) | <0.001 |
| ≥ 31 | 2 (22.2) | 34 (30.4) | 43 (58.1) | ||
Discussion
Many nutritional assessment tools are used in the general population, but most require trained personnel or specific equipment. Anthropometric measurements require training for the use of calipers. Operator dependent variability is a possibility. Most of these tools are less reliable for comparing nutritional status and mortality in MHD patients and some like BMI shows reverse epidemiological correlation as compared to the general population [16]. Previously we did a study of nutritional assessment in which we did bedside anthropometric measurements only [13]. In this study, we evaluated nutritional status of MHD patients using MNA and compared it with anthropometric measurements. MNA has been designed to provide a rapid assessment of nutritional status in elderly patients in outpatient clinics, hospitals, and nursing homes [17]. It showed similar efficacy as a diagnostic tool of malnutrition compared to SGA, which is more time-consuming and requires trained staff [18].
Most of our study patients were male and young, which comprises the working class in our country. This is comparable to other studies [19]. Age is an important factor, as the number of elderly MHD patients are increasing globally. MNA was used initially as a nutritional assessment tool for elderly with normal renal function. Early detection of PEW in elderly MHD patients can be crucial. Soysal et al. evaluated frailty status by Fried’s criteria (unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, low levels of activity, weakness, and slowness) and MNA, found that frailty status is associated with the nutritional status, and MNA showed a strong correlation with Fried’s frailty criteria in older adults [20]. The majority of our patients at risk of malnutrition belonged to the age group 51-65 years (46, 41.1%) and more than 65 years (20, 17.9%).
When we evaluated the response to different questions of MNA, we found that most of our study patients were taking three meals a day (150, 76.9%) and felt as good as other people of the same age group (114, 58.5%). Most of our patients are fully active (134, 68.7%). This could be due to strict adherence to MHD protocols and regularity of hemodialysis.
In our study, we found a strong association of MNA with BMI (p <0.001). Most of our patients had a normal BMI (105, 52.8%), but the majority were at risk of malnutrition (112, 57.4%). These results are similar to another study from Pakistan [21]. Similar to BMI, anthropometric measurements showed a strong association with MNA (MAC, p=0.036; CC, p<0.001; MAMC, p=0.016). As compared to our previous study [13], MNA showed comparative effectiveness to anthropometric measurements alone in this study. Occupation, socioeconomic status and presence of diabetes mellitus did not show any association with MNA in our study.
Limitations
Our study has a few limitations. It is a single-center study, we have not inquired about dietary routine of patients, and we have not compared MNA with other nutritional assessment tools like SGA. We compared MNA with anthropometric measurements alone and found comparative efficacy in MHD patients. Our study is done in one of the biggest hemodialysis units in Pakistan. We found MNA as a simple, easy to use tool for nutritional assessment in MHD patients. This study will help nephrologists and renal nutritionists for better and timely management of MHD patients, as nutritional status correlates well with morbidity and mortality.
Conclusions
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing problem globally involving all age groups, including the working class. Despite being done at one specialist nephrology center, our study highlighted the importance of nutritional status and its assessment by using MNA, which is an easy and simple bedside scoring system. Timely and correct assessment of nutritional status helps renal nutritionists and nephrologists for the proper treatment of malnutrition.
The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Human Ethics
Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. The Kidney Centre Ethical Review Committee issued approval ERC Reference No. 116-NEPH-022021. Dear Dr. Kiran Nasir, Your submission Reference No. 116-NEPH-022021, titled “Nutritional assessment of hemodialysis patients using mini nutritional assessment score (MNA)”, is approved by TKC-ERC. This approval is valid for 1 year with effect from 16.02.2021. For the continuation of project in the next years, you have to send a progress report and a formal request asking for continuation of project. Kindly keep the TKC-ERC, updated about the progress of the project and submit the formal final report on completion
Animal Ethics
Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.
References
- 1.A systematic analysis of worldwide population-based data on the global burden of chronic kidney disease in 2010. Mills KT, Xu Y, Zhang W, et al. Kidney Int. 2015;88:950–957. doi: 10.1038/ki.2015.230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Global prevalence of protein-energy wasting in kidney disease: a meta-analysis of contemporary observational studies from the International Society of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism. Carrero JJ, Thomas F, Nagy K, et al. J Ren Nutr. 2018;28:380–392. doi: 10.1053/j.jrn.2018.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Comparison of nutritional risk scores for predicting mortality in Japanese chronic hemodialysis patients. Takahashi H, Inoue K, Shimizu K, et al. J Ren Nutr. 2017;27:201–206. doi: 10.1053/j.jrn.2016.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Validity of malnutrition scores for predicting mortality in chronic hemodialysis patients. Toledo FR, Antunes AA, Vannini FC, Silveira LV, Martin LC, Barretti P, Caramori JC. Int Urol Nephrol. 2013;45:1747–1752. doi: 10.1007/s11255-013-0482-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Impact of malnutrition on health-related quality of life in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Nagy E, Mahmoud M, El-Kannishy G, Sayed-Ahmed N. Ther Apher Dial. 2021;25:467–474. doi: 10.1111/1744-9987.13588. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.The relationship between malnutrition and quality of life in haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. Günalay S, Öztürk YK, Akar H, Mergen H. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2018;64:845–852. doi: 10.1590/1806-9282.64.09.845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Understanding development of malnutrition in hemodialysis patients: a narrative review. Sahathevan S, Khor BH, Ng HM, Gafor AH, Mat Daud ZA, Mafra D, Karupaiah T. Nutrients. 2020;12:3147. doi: 10.3390/nu12103147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Nutritional assessment and its correlation with anthropometric measurements in hemodialysis patients. Koor BE, Nakhaie MR, Babaie S. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2015;26:697–701. doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.160146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Assessment of nutritional status in the maintenance of haemodialysis patients: a cross-sectional study from Palestine. Omari AM, Omari LS, Dagash HH, Sweileh WM, Natour N, Zyoud SH. BMC Nephrol. 2019;20:92. doi: 10.1186/s12882-019-1288-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Overview of the MNA--Its history and challenges. Vellas B, Villars H, Abellan G, et al. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6617786_Overview_of_the_MNA_-_Its_history_and_challenges. J Nutr Health Aging. 2006;10:456–463. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Nutritional assessment of elderly patients on dialysis: pitfalls and potentials for practice. Rodrigues J, Cuppari L, Campbell KL, Avesani CM. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32:1780–1789. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfw471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.The screening score of mini nutritional assessment (MNA) is a useful routine screening tool for malnutrition risk in patients on maintenance dialysis. Holvoet E, Vanden Wyngaert K, Van Craenenbroeck AH, Van Biesen W, Eloot S. PLoS One. 2020;15:0. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Assessment of the nutritional status of the hemodialysis patients by anthropometric measurements. Sultan S, Nasir K, Qureshi R, Dhrolia M, Ahmad A. Cureus. 2021;13:0. doi: 10.7759/cureus.18605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Reference data for obesity: 85th and 95th percentiles of body mass index (wt/ht2) and triceps skinfold thickness. Must A, Dallal GE, Dietz WH. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;53:839–846. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/53.4.839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.The usefulness of anthropometric measures. Landi F, Liperoti R, Onder G. Eur J Nutr. 2013;52:1683. doi: 10.1007/s00394-013-0550-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.The diet and haemodialysis dyad: three eras, four open questions and four paradoxes. A narrative review, towards a personalized, patient-centered approach. Piccoli GB, Moio MR, Fois A, et al. Nutrients. 2017;9:372. doi: 10.3390/nu9040372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.The mini nutritional assessment (MNA) and its use in grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Vellas B, Guigoz Y, Garry PJ, Nourhashemi F, Bennahum D, Lauque S, Albarede JL. Nutrition. 1999;15:116–122. doi: 10.1016/s0899-9007(98)00171-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.A comparison of the full mini nutritional assessment, short-form mini nutritional assessment, and subjective global assessment to predict the risk of protein-energy malnutrition in patients on peritoneal dialysis: a cross-sectional study. Tsai AC, Wang JY, Chang TL, Li TY. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50:83–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.08.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Assessing the nutritional status of hemodialysis patients in a Sub-Saharan country. Agboton BL, Agueh VD, Vigan J, Sourou BA, Ahoui S, Agboton CG, Djrolo F. https://www.iomcworld.com/open-access/assessing-the-nutritional-status-of-hemodialysis-patients-in-a-subsaharancountry-2472-1220-1000145.pdf J Kidney. 2017;3:1–5. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Mini nutritional assessment scale-short form can be useful for frailty screening in older adults. Soysal P, Veronese N, Arik F, Kalan U, Smith L, Isik AT. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:693–699. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S196770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Nutritional status of patients on maintenance hemodialysis as assessed by mini nutritional assessment survey-short form and anthropometric measurements. Rizvi N, Baig M. https://pjkd.com.pk/index.php/pjkd/article/view/68 PJKD. 2020;4:249–253. [Google Scholar]