Archives of Rehabilitation Research and Clinical Translation (Sep 2024)

Baseline Nutritional Status and Rehabilitation Progress in Individuals Requiring Inpatient Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

  • Hideki Arai, MD, PhD,
  • Syuya Okada, PT,
  • Tatsuyuki Fukuoka, SLP, PhD,
  • Masafumi Nozoe, PT, PhD,
  • Kuniyasu Kamiya, PT, PhD,
  • Satoru Matsumoto, MD

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 6, no. 3
p. 100362

Abstract

Read online

Objective: To evaluate the relationships between baseline nutritional status, medical events (MEs), and rehabilitation outcomes in individuals undergoing inpatient rehabilitation (IR). Design: A retrospective single center cohort study. Setting: An IR ward. Participants: This study included 409 patients (mean age, 80 years; men, 170 [42%]) undergoing IR for hospital-associated deconditioning, neurologic disorders, or musculoskeletal diseases. Participants were grouped according to the Controlling Nutritional Status score at admission: normal nutrition (NN): 0 to 1, mild malnutrition (MM): 2 to 4, and moderate/severe malnutrition (M/SM): 5 to 12. Interventions: None. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes included MEs leading to death or acute illness requiring transfer to other hospitals for specialized treatments. The secondary outcomes were the rehabilitation efficiency scores (changes in Functional Independence Measure [FIM] score divided by length of stay) for motor function (FIM-M) and cognitive function (FIM-C). Results: Among the 409 participants, 300 (73%) were malnourished at admission. The adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for MEs in the MM and M/SM groups relative to the NN group were 1.48 (0.67-3.27) and 0.98 (0.34-2.81), respectively. No significant differences were observed among the 3 groups in FIM-M efficiency scores (mean ± SD, NN: 0.49±0.51 vs MM: 0.41±0.57 vs M/SM: 0.44±1.06, P=.7) or FIM-C efficiency scores (0.04±0.06 vs 0.04±0.06 vs 0.08±0.4, P=0.1). Analysis of covariance showed no significant association between MM or M/SM group and FIM-M efficiency score (beta coefficient = -0.038, P=.6; beta coefficient = 0.15, P=.1, respectively) or FIM-C efficiency score (beta coefficient = 0.004, P=.8; beta coefficient = 0.047, P=.08, respectively). Conclusion: No significant associations were observed between the baseline nutritional status and MEs, FIM-M efficiency score, or FIM-C efficiency score in individuals undergoing IR.

Keywords