Yeon Hee Lee1, Jung-Dong Lee2, Dae Ryong Kang3, Jeong Hong4, Jae-Myeong Lee5. 1. Food Service and Clinical Nutrition Team, Ajou University Hospital, Worldcup-ro 164, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon 16499, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: yeonlee@aumc.ac.kr. 2. Office of Biostatistics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Worldcup-ro 164, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon 16499, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: obs@aumc.ac.kr. 3. Office of Biostatistics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Worldcup-ro 164, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon 16499, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: dykang@aumc.ac.kr. 4. Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Worldcup-ro 164, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon 16499, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: hongj@ajou.ac.kr. 5. Department of Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Inchon-ro 73, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: ljm3225@hanmail.net.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived parameters in critically ill patients to evaluate any differences between survivors and nonsurvivors. METHODS: We calculated severity scores for 241 critically ill surgical patients (161 male and 80 female; mean age, 62.9years) using three severity scoring systems (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, and Simplified Acute Physiology Score III). Body composition was measured using a portable BIA device for segmental BIA. RESULTS: Among the BIA values, impedance (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; P<0.001), reactance (OR 0.90; P<0.001), and phase angle (PhA) (OR, 0.53; P<0.001) were highly statistically significant for predicting mortality in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Comparison of area under the curve (AUC) between severity scoring systems and BIA values showed statistically significant differences between reactance and PhA with all three severity scoring systems. Covariate-adjusted receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that compared with severity scoring, all three BIA values (impedance, reactance, and PhA) had higher AUC values. CONCLUSIONS: PhA, impedance, and reactance determined by BIA in critically ill patients were associated with mortality outcomes and revealed stronger predictive power for mortality than severity scoring systems commonly used in an intensive care unit.
PURPOSE: We investigated bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-derived parameters in critically illpatients to evaluate any differences between survivors and nonsurvivors. METHODS: We calculated severity scores for 241 critically ill surgical patients (161 male and 80 female; mean age, 62.9years) using three severity scoring systems (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, and Simplified Acute Physiology Score III). Body composition was measured using a portable BIA device for segmental BIA. RESULTS: Among the BIA values, impedance (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; P<0.001), reactance (OR 0.90; P<0.001), and phase angle (PhA) (OR, 0.53; P<0.001) were highly statistically significant for predicting mortality in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Comparison of area under the curve (AUC) between severity scoring systems and BIA values showed statistically significant differences between reactance and PhA with all three severity scoring systems. Covariate-adjusted receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that compared with severity scoring, all three BIA values (impedance, reactance, and PhA) had higher AUC values. CONCLUSIONS: PhA, impedance, and reactance determined by BIA in critically illpatients were associated with mortality outcomes and revealed stronger predictive power for mortality than severity scoring systems commonly used in an intensive care unit.
Authors: Nicolaas E P Deutz; Pierre Singer; Raven A Wierzchowska-McNew; Marina V Viana; Itai A Ben-David; Olivier Pantet; John J Thaden; Gabriella A M Ten Have; Mariëlle P K J Engelen; Mette M Berger Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Sina M Coldewey; Charles Neu; Philipp Baumbach; Andre Scherag; Björn Goebel; Katrin Ludewig; Frank Bloos; Michael Bauer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jürgen Puchinger; Sylvia Ryz; Larissa Nixdorf; Maximilian Edlinger-Stanger; Andrea Lassnigg; Dominik Wiedemann; Michael Hiesmayr; Andreas Spittler; Martin H Bernardi Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Sandra N Stapel; Wilhelmus G P M Looijaard; Ingeborg M Dekker; Armand R J Girbes; Peter J M Weijs; Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2018-05-11 Impact factor: 4.016