BACKGROUND & AIMS: Low phase angle (PhA) by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), is associated with increased morbidity and nutritional risk. This study determined the cut-off values for PhA compared to Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002) and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in patients at hospital admission, and evaluated the association between PhA and serum albumin. METHODS: PhA was determined in patients (Men (M)/Women (W)=382/267), and healthy age-, sex- and height-matched controls. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for PhA compared to NRS-2002, SGA and serum albumin. The cut-off values were assessed by receiver operator characteristics area under the curve (ROC-AUC). RESULTS: The best PhA cut-offs were 5.0° and 4.6° in M/W. The sensitivity for NRS-2002 was 70.0/58.1% (M/W); SGA: 73.3/64.5%; albumin: 58.8/23.5%; specificity for NRS-2002: 85.1/81.7% (M/W); SGA: 76.6/76.1% and albumin: 93.2/96.6%. The PhA showed a ROC-AUC for NRS-2002 of 0.85/0.80 (M/W); SGA: 0.83/0.80 and albumin: 0.85/0.91. Patients with albumin levels <35 g/L had a relative risk of 7.5 to have low PhA compared to patients with ≥35 g/L CONCLUSIONS: The consistent sensitivity and specificity between PhA and three screening tools strengthens the validity of our study. PhA appears to be a useful screening tool to assess nutritional risk without having to measure weight or height.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Low phase angle (PhA) by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), is associated with increased morbidity and nutritional risk. This study determined the cut-off values for PhA compared to Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002) and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) in patients at hospital admission, and evaluated the association between PhA and serum albumin. METHODS: PhA was determined in patients (Men (M)/Women (W)=382/267), and healthy age-, sex- and height-matched controls. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for PhA compared to NRS-2002, SGA and serum albumin. The cut-off values were assessed by receiver operator characteristics area under the curve (ROC-AUC). RESULTS: The best PhA cut-offs were 5.0° and 4.6° in M/W. The sensitivity for NRS-2002 was 70.0/58.1% (M/W); SGA: 73.3/64.5%; albumin: 58.8/23.5%; specificity for NRS-2002: 85.1/81.7% (M/W); SGA: 76.6/76.1% and albumin: 93.2/96.6%. The PhA showed a ROC-AUC for NRS-2002 of 0.85/0.80 (M/W); SGA: 0.83/0.80 and albumin: 0.85/0.91. Patients with albumin levels <35 g/L had a relative risk of 7.5 to have low PhA compared to patients with ≥35 g/L CONCLUSIONS: The consistent sensitivity and specificity between PhA and three screening tools strengthens the validity of our study. PhA appears to be a useful screening tool to assess nutritional risk without having to measure weight or height.
Authors: M Bellini; D Gambaccini; L Bazzichi; G Bassotti; M G Mumolo; B Fani; F Costa; A Ricchiuti; N De Bortoli; M Mosca; S Marchi; A Rossi Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 3.781