ASPEN-AND-ESPEN: A postacute-care comparison of the basic definition of malnutrition from the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics with the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism definition

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of malnutrition by applying the ASPEN/AND definition and the ESPEN consensus definition in a postacute-care population, and secondly, to determine the metrological properties of the set of six clinical characteristics that constitute the ASPEN/AND basic diagnosis, compared to the ESPEN consensus, based mostly on objective anthropometric measurements. METHODS: Prospective study of 84 consecutive deconditioned older inpatients (85.4 ± 6.2; 59.5% women) admitted for rehabilitation in postacute care. ASPEN/AND diagnosis of malnutrition was considered in presence of at least two of the following: low energy intake, fluid accumulation, diminished handgrip strength, and loss of weight, muscle mass, or subcutaneous fat. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, likelihood ratios, and kappa statistics were calculated for ASPEN/AND criteria and compared with ESPEN consensus. RESULTS: The prevalence of malnutrition by ASPEN/AND criteria was 63.1% and by ESPEN consensus, 20.2%; both diagnoses were associated with significantly longer length of stay, but the ESPEN definition was significantly associated with poorer functional outcomes after the rehabilitation program. Compared to ESPEN consensus, ASPEN/AND diagnosis showed fair validity (sensitivity = 94.1%; specificity = 44.8%); kappa statistic was 2.217. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the ASPEN/AND definition obtained a higher prevalence of malnutrition in a postacute-care population than was identified by the ESPEN definition. ASPEN/AND criteria had fair validity and agreement compared with the ESPEN definition. A simple, evidence-based, unified malnutrition definition might improve geriatric care.