GuiDeCode

NUTRIC Score

Nutritional Risk in the Critically Ill — identifies ICU patients who benefit from aggressive nutrition.

Calculator

Loading calculator…

Why use it

Standard ICU nutrition guidelines (SCCM/ASPEN) recommend NUTRIC as the preferred nutritional risk tool in the ICU. Identifies patients for whom achieving >80% of caloric target improves mortality.

About

The NUTRIC Score identifies critically ill patients who are most likely to benefit from aggressive nutritional therapy. The modified NUTRIC score excludes IL-6 (often unavailable). Higher scores indicate higher nutritional risk and potential benefit from high-dose nutrition.

When to use

  • Critically ill adults within first 24-48 hours of ICU admission
  • Deciding on intensity of nutritional support
  • Identifying patients who benefit from early and high-dose enteral nutrition

Formula

Age: <50=0, 50-74=1, ≥75=2 APACHE II: <15=0, 15-19=1, 20-27=2, ≥28=3 SOFA: <6=0, 6-9=1, ≥10=2 Number of comorbidities: 0-1=0, ≥2=1 Days in hospital before ICU: <1=0, ≥1=1 Modified NUTRIC (no IL-6): max 9. High risk ≥5.

Pearls & pitfalls

  • Modified NUTRIC (without IL-6) is most commonly used in clinical practice.
  • High NUTRIC + inadequate calories = worse outcomes; these patients benefit most from optimized EN.
  • NUTRIC was derived specifically for ICU (unlike NRS-2002 or MUST which are for general ward).
  • Score ≥5 without IL-6 (or ≥6 with IL-6) = high nutritional risk.

Next steps

Modified NUTRIC ≥5: High nutritional risk — target 100% of caloric goal; early EN within 24-48h. Score <5: Low risk — standard nutrition protocol.

Evidence

Heyland et al. JPEN 2011. Validated in Canadian ICU cohort (n=597). NUTRIC ≥5 associated with significantly higher 28-day mortality if calories <80% of goal.

References

  1. Heyland DK et al. Identifying critically ill patients who benefit the most from nutritional therapy. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R268. — link
  2. McClave SA et al. SCCM/ASPEN Guidelines for Nutrition Support Therapy in Adult ICU. JPEN. 2016;40(2):159-211. — link