F Lamarca1, J J Carrero, J C D Rodrigues, F G Bigogno, R L Fetter, C M Avesani. 1. Carla Maria Avesani, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524. Sala 12025 D. 12° andar. Rio de Janeiro, RJ; 20550-900. Brazil. E-mail: carla.avesani@gmail.com; Telephone and fax: +55 21 2334-0270 ext 216.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The prevalence of sarcopenia on elderly maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) has been scarcely investigated. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of decreased muscle mass and strength alone or combined (true sarcopenia) in elderly patients on MHD according to different methods and cutoff limits. Additionally, we evaluated the agreement between dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and surrogate methods for the assessment of muscle mass. DESIGN: Observational and cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Non-institutionalized 102 elderly (age > 60 years) patients on MHD. MEASUREMENTS: Sarcopenia was considered when the patient fit one criteria for low muscle mass assessed by DXA, bioelectrical impedance (BIA), sum of skinfold thicknesses (SKF), calf circumference and mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC) and one for low muscle strength evaluated by handgrip dynamometer. RESULTS: Decreased muscle strength was found in 85% of the patients. The prevalence of decreased muscle mass varied from 4 to 73.5% and of sarcopenia (decreased muscle mass and strength combined) from 4 to 63%, depending on the method and cutoff limit applied. A small percentage of patients (2 to 15%) were classified as sarcopenic by more than one diagnostic criteria. The agreement between DXA and the surrogate methods to assess muscle mass showed better kappa coefficients with BIA (r=0.36; P<0.01) and SKF (r=0.40; P<0.01). CONCLUSION: A wide prevalence of sarcopenia is observed depending on the method and cutoff limit applied. This may limit extrapolate on to clinical practice. BIA and SKF were the surrogate methods to assess muscle mass with the best concordance with DXA in elderly MHD patients.
UNLABELLED: The prevalence of sarcopenia on elderly maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) has been scarcely investigated. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of decreased muscle mass and strength alone or combined (true sarcopenia) in elderly patients on MHD according to different methods and cutoff limits. Additionally, we evaluated the agreement between dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and surrogate methods for the assessment of muscle mass. DESIGN: Observational and cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Non-institutionalized 102 elderly (age > 60 years) patients on MHD. MEASUREMENTS: Sarcopenia was considered when the patient fit one criteria for low muscle mass assessed by DXA, bioelectrical impedance (BIA), sum of skinfold thicknesses (SKF), calf circumference and mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC) and one for low muscle strength evaluated by handgrip dynamometer. RESULTS: Decreased muscle strength was found in 85% of the patients. The prevalence of decreased muscle mass varied from 4 to 73.5% and of sarcopenia (decreased muscle mass and strength combined) from 4 to 63%, depending on the method and cutoff limit applied. A small percentage of patients (2 to 15%) were classified as sarcopenic by more than one diagnostic criteria. The agreement between DXA and the surrogate methods to assess muscle mass showed better kappa coefficients with BIA (r=0.36; P<0.01) and SKF (r=0.40; P<0.01). CONCLUSION: A wide prevalence of sarcopenia is observed depending on the method and cutoff limit applied. This may limit extrapolate on to clinical practice. BIA and SKF were the surrogate methods to assess muscle mass with the best concordance with DXA in elderly MHD patients.
Authors: John E Morley; Angela Marie Abbatecola; Josep M Argiles; Vickie Baracos; Juergen Bauer; Shalender Bhasin; Tommy Cederholm; Andrew J Stewart Coats; Steven R Cummings; William J Evans; Kenneth Fearon; Luigi Ferrucci; Roger A Fielding; Jack M Guralnik; Tamara B Harris; Akio Inui; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Bridget-Anne Kirwan; Giovanni Mantovani; Maurizio Muscaritoli; Anne B Newman; Filippo Rossi-Fanelli; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Ronenn Roubenoff; Morris Schambelan; Gerald H Sokol; Thomas W Storer; Bruno Vellas; Stephan von Haehling; Shing-Shing Yeh; Stefan D Anker Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Iván Cabezas-Rodriguez; Juan Jesús Carrero; Carmine Zoccali; Abdul Rashid Qureshi; Markus Ketteler; Jürgen Floege; Gérard London; Francesco Locatelli; José Luis Gorriz; Boleslaw Rutkowski; Dimitrios Memmos; Anibal Ferreira; Adrian Covic; Vladimir Teplan; Willem-Jan Bos; Reinhard Kramar; Drasko Pavlovic; David Goldsmith; Judit Nagy; Miha Benedik; Dierik Verbeelen; Christian Tielemans; Rudolf P Wüthrich; Pierre-Yves Martin; Carlos Martínez-Salgado; José Luis Fernández-Martín; Jorge B Cannata-Andia Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-09-05 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: V E Arango-Lopera; P Arroyo; L M Gutiérrez-Robledo; M U Pérez-Zepeda; M Cesari Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Juan Jesús Carrero; Peter Stenvinkel; Lilian Cuppari; T Alp Ikizler; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; George Kaysen; William E Mitch; S Russ Price; Christoph Wanner; Angela Y M Wang; Pieter ter Wee; Harold A Franch Journal: J Ren Nutr Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.655
Authors: Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Jean Pierre Baeyens; Jürgen M Bauer; Yves Boirie; Tommy Cederholm; Francesco Landi; Finbarr C Martin; Jean-Pierre Michel; Yves Rolland; Stéphane M Schneider; Eva Topinková; Maurits Vandewoude; Mauro Zamboni Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: M Muscaritoli; S D Anker; J Argilés; Z Aversa; J M Bauer; G Biolo; Y Boirie; I Bosaeus; T Cederholm; P Costelli; K C Fearon; A Laviano; M Maggio; F Rossi Fanelli; S M Schneider; A Schols; C C Sieber Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2010-01-08 Impact factor: 7.324