Background Surgical patients are especially susceptible to nutritional disorders; additionally an adequate nutritional status is important in achieving prompt recovery.

Purpose To describe and analyse possible shortcomings related to nutritional status of surgical patients associated with an inadequate prescription of parenteral nutrition (PN).

Material and methods A prospective, observational study, lasting two months, of post-surgical patients in a third level hospital with PN support.

Estimated calorie requirements (CR) of surgical patients were calculated. The Harris-Benedict formula was the method used to evaluate CR taking into account the degree of metabolic stress in each surgical patient.

Data were collected from the medical history of each patient: age, diagnosis, duration of PN support, glycaemia, electrolytes, total proteins and other haematological parameters.

An assessment was made of how many blood tests were requested for every patient, at the beginning, during and at the end of parenteral support.

Results A total of 75 patients were studied. In 19.2% of cases the CR were successfully supplied. In 72.6% of cases the prescribed caloric intake was insufficient compared to their estimated CR. In the remaining 8.2% of cases the caloric intake exceeded their estimated CR.

23.2% of the patients studied were obese. In 76.5% of them, the prescribed caloric intake differed from the estimated CR, despite the body weight calculation being adjusted for these patients.

Conclusion Our study showed that 80.8% of patients were not given sufficient nutritional support, missing their estimated CR. It shows the lack of a structured protocol to addresses the nutritional assessment in surgical patients.

References and/or Acknowledgements

1. Keith JN. Bedside nutrition assessment past, present, and future: a review of the subjective global assessment. Nutr Clin Pract 2008;23(4):410–16

2. Martins CP, Correia JR, Do Amaral TF. Undernutrition risk screening and length of stay of hospitalized elderly. J Nutr Elder 2005;25(2):5–21

References and/or AcknowledgementsNo conflict of interest.