Association between GLIM‐defined malnutrition and in‐hospital costs in adults with sepsis: A sub analysis of a prospective cohort study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: International statements suggest using the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria in intensive care units (ICUs); however, the economic impact of GLIM-defined malnutrition in sepsis remains unclear. This study investigated the association between GLIM-defined malnutrition and in-hospital costs in sepsis. METHODS: We conducted a sub-analysis of the prospective cohort study, Investing Long-term Outcomes of Sepsis or Septic shock, among medically managed critically ill patients with sepsis in 15 Japanese ICUs. Associations between GLIM-defined malnutrition and cost categories (low, moderate, and high) were assessed using multinomial logistic regression (reference: low-cost group), adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Individual GLIM components were also examined. Total in-hospital costs and secondary outcomes were compared between malnutrition and non-malnutrition groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Among 259 patients, 111 had GLIM-defined malnutrition. GLIM-defined malnutrition was associated with both the moderate-cost (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-3.89) and high-cost classifications (AOR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.20-4.29). Among GLIM components, reduced muscle mass (AOR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.04-3.68) and reduced food intake (AOR: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.39-4.92) were associated with the high-cost classification. After weighting, the malnutrition group had significantly higher median in-hospital costs (24,959 vs. 18,651 USD), longer hospital stays, and longer ICU stays than the non-malnutrition group. CONCLUSIONS: GLIM-defined malnutrition-particularly reduced muscle mass and reduced food intake-was associated with higher in-hospital costs in sepsis and may be a potential indicator of high-cost hospitalization.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.