| Literature DB >> 29211778 |
Lu Dai1,2, Hideyuki Mukai1, Bengt Lindholm1, Olof Heimbürger1, Peter Barany1, Peter Stenvinkel1, Abdul Rashid Qureshi1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of subjective global assessment (SGA) as nutritional assessor of protein-energy wasting (PEWSGA) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients depends on its mortality predictive capacity. We investigated associations of PEWSGA with markers of nutritional status and all-cause mortality in CKD patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29211778 PMCID: PMC5718431 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186659
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Baseline demographic and biochemical characteristics of 1031 CKD patients according to presence of malnutrition defined as SGA score >1.
| Variables | Well-nourished (n = 711) | Malnourished (n = 320) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 56 (33–73) | 61 (38–76) | |
| Gender, male (%) | 474(67) | 183(57) | |
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 170(24) | 99(31) | |
| CVD, n (%) | 202(28) | 168(53) | |
| Smoking, n (%) (n = 590/281) | 284(48) | 178(63) | |
| Cause of kidney disease, n (%): | |||
| Glomerulonephritis | 172(26) | 53(17) | |
| Diabetic nephropathy | 115(18) | 77(24) | |
| Hypertension/Renal vascular disease | 105(16) | 66(21) | 0.07 |
| Unknown or other etiology | 243(37) | 122(38) | 0.69 |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.732) | 6.1 (0–68.8) | 5.6 (0–11.4) | |
| Mean BP (mmHg; n = 644/268) | 106 (88–124) | 102 (83–128) | |
| Dialysis, n (%) | 168(24) | 131(41) | |
| % HGS (n = 688/297) | 93 (58–119) | 67 (37–102) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.4 (20.9–30.9) | 22.8 (18.4–29.5) | |
| LBMI (kg/m2; n = 620/270) | 17.6 (14.3–20.7) | 16.0 (13.4–19.9) | |
| FBMI (kg/m2; n = 620/270) | 7.6 (4.5–11.7) | 6.1 (3.4–10.5) | |
| Creatinine (μmol/L) | 664 (95–1017) | 627 (403–917) | 0.79 |
| S-Albumin (g/L) | 36 (29–41) | 33 (25–39) | |
| Calcium(mmol/L; n = 690/301) | 2.4(2.1–2.5) | 2.4(2.1–2.8) | |
| Phosphate (mmol/L; n = 690/301) | 1.6(0.9–2.5) | 1.7(1.2–2.6) | |
| Ca×PO4 (mmol2/L2; n = 690/301) | 3.9 (2.2–6.1) | 4.2 (2.7–6.4) | |
| iPTH (ng/l; n = 632/281) | 171 (34–541) | 210 (41–607) | |
| Cholesterol (mmol/L; n = 707/318) | 4.7 (3.3–6.5) | 4.6 (3.3–7.1) | 0.42 |
| TG (mmol/L; n = 703/319) | 1.6 (0.8–3.3) | 1.6 (0.8–2.9) | 0.64 |
| IGF-1 (μg/ml;n = 562/251) | 171 (88–320) | 150 (66–297) | |
| Hemoglobin (g/L) | 115 (93–143) | 110 (91–128) | |
| hsCRP (mg/L) | 2.5 (0.5–17) | 7.3 (0.7–45.8) | |
| IL-6 (pg/ml; n = 626/290) | 4.2 (1.0–12.3) | 7.8 (2.0–22.8) | |
| TNF (pg/ml; n = 588/275) | 11.2 (5.7–19.1) | 13.6 (7.7–17.4) |
Data presented as median (10th–90th percentile), number or percentage. Abbreviations: SGA, subjective global assessment; CVD, cardiovascular disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; BP, blood pressure; % HGS, handgrip strength as percentage of the controls; BMI, body mass index; LBMI, lean body mass index; FBMI, fat body mass index; S-Albumin, serum albumin; Ca×PO4, calcium phosphate product; iPTH, intact parathyroid hormone; TG, triglyceride; IGF-1, insulin-growth like factor-1; hsCRP, high sensitivity C-reactive protein; IL-6, interleukin-6; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.
aIn hemodialysis patients (HD) who in general had no or minimal renal function, eGFR was assumed to be zero; eGFR in all patients (except HD patients) were estimated by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formula.
Univariate Spearman’s Rho correlations of SGA with other parameters in 1031 CKD patients.
| Rho correlations with SGA>1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Variables | CKD- non dialysis | CKD 5- dialysis |
| Age (years) | 0.10 | 0.08 |
| Gender (male/female) | -0.05 | -0.16 |
| Diabetes mellitus, % | 0.12 | 0.03 |
| CVD, % | 0.28 | 0.09 |
| Smoking, % (n = 582/258) | 0.12 | 0.18 |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.732) | -0.08 | |
| Mean BP (mmHg, n = 582/224) | -0.08 | 0.03 |
| % HGS (n = 696/289) | -0.38 | -0.22 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | -0.26 | -0.26 |
| LBMI (kg/m2, n = 691/280) | -0.23 | -0.23 |
| FBMI (kg/m2, n = 691/280) | -0.18 | -0.18 |
| Creatinine (μmol/L) | 0.06 | -0.23 |
| Cholesterol (mmol/L, n = 730/295) | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Triglyceride (mmol/L, n = 729/296) | 0.02 | -0.05 |
| IGF1 (μg/ml, n = 535/278) | -0.13 | -0.13 |
| iPTH (ng/l, n = 698/215) | 0.11 | -0.10 |
| Ca×PO4 (mmol2/L2; n = 690/301) | 0.07 | 0.08 |
| Hemoglobin (g/L,n = 729/293) | -0.23 | -0.04 |
| S-Albumin (g/L) | -0.26 | -0.20 |
| hsCRP (mmol/L) | 0.27 | 0.21 |
| IL-6 (pg/ml,n = 631/285) | 0.24 | 0.27 |
| TNF (pg/ml, n = 578/285) | 0.18 | 0.11 |
Abbreviations: SGA, subjective global assessment; CVD, cardiovascular disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; BP, blood pressure; % HGS, handgrip strength as percentage of the controls; BMI, body mass index; LBMI, lean body mass index; FBMI, fat body mass index; IGF-1, insulin-growth like factor -1; i PTH, intact parathyroid hormone; Ca×PO4, calcium phosphate product; S-Albumin, serum albumin; hsCRP, high sensitivity C-reactive protein; IL-6, interleukin-6; TNF, tumor necrosis factor. Significant correlations are marked:
a P < 0.05,
b P < 0.01,
c P < 0.001
dIn hemodialysis patients (HD) who in general had no or minimal renal function, eGFR was assumed to be zero; eGFR in all patients (except HD patients) were estimated by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formula.
Fig 1The predictive strength, expressed as pseudo-r, by which clinical and nutrition-related parameters could explain variation of presence of malnutrition by SGA.
Model 1: Age, gender, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease; Model 2: Model 1 + body mass index and lean body mass index; Model 3: Model 2 + high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and serum albumin; Model 4: Model 3 + handgrip strength (percentage of the controls) and treatment modality (dialysis/non-dialysis). The analysis was performed by multinomial logistic regression using cut-off values derived from receiver operating characteristics curves.
All-cause mortality risk for death occurring within 60 months based on imputed baseline data in 1031 patients, adjusted for all confounders, and expressed as relative risk ratio (95% CI).
| Relative Risk Ratio | P value | |
|---|---|---|
| SGA>1, malnourished versus well nourished | 1.17 (1.11–1.23) | |
| Age, > 61 versus <61 years | 1.14 (1.09–1.20) | |
| Gender, male versus female | 1.08 (1.02–1.14) | |
| Diabetes mellitus, presence versus absence | 1.11 (1.05–1.17) | |
| CVD (yes/no),presence versus absence | 1.12 (1.06–1.18) | |
| % HGS, >74.07 versus <74.07 | 1.19 (1.13–1.25) | |
| LBMI, >17 versus < 17 kg/m2
| 1.06 (1.01–1.12) | |
| Albumin, >34 versus <34 g/L | 1.06 (1.01–1.11) | |
| hsCRP, > 4.7 versus < 4.7 mg/L | 1.07 (1.02–1.12) | |
| Calendar year, 1994–1999 vs 2010–2016 | 1.16 (1.07–1.25) | |
| Calendar year, 2000–2004 vs 2010–2016 | 1.17 (1.10–1.24) | |
| Calendar year, 2005–2009 vs 2010–2016 | 1.16 (1.08–1.25) | |
| Dialysis vs Non dialysis | 1.06 (1.01–1.12) |
Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; SGA, subjective global assessment; CVD, cardiovascular disease; % HGS, handgrip strength as percentage of the controls; LBMI, lean body mass index; hsCRP, high sensitivity C-reactive protein.
a Cut-offs defined by ROC curve analysis.
Nutritional markers at baseline and after a median follow-up of 12.6 months in four groups defined by changes in SGA.
| Group WN-WN | Group MN-WN | Group WN-MN | Group MN-MN | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S-Albumin, baseline, g/L | 36(29.0–41.0) | 33(26.1–38.9) | 33.5(25.0–40.5) | 33(24.8–41.0) | |
| S-Albumin, after follow-up, g/L (n = 213/38/22/34) | 37(31.4–43.0) | 35(30.6–41.1) | 36(26.0–41.1) | 34(26.0–42.0) | |
| hsCRP, baseline, mg/L | 3.4(0.6–15.7) | 11.5(1.4–50.8) | 6.4(0.4–20) | 6.2(0.8–31.8) | |
| hsCRP, after follow-up, mg/L (n = 210/38/20/32) | 2.8(0.5–15.3) | 4.5(0.8–23.7) | 2.6(0.6–126.2) | 5.8(0.2–47.3) | 0.06 |
| Cholesterol, baseline, mmol/L (n = 221/40/24/37) | 4.9(3.5–6.9) | 5.3(3.4–7.7) | 5.3(3.1–6.4) | 4.9(3.3–7.7) | 0.54 |
| Cholesterol, after follow-up, mmol/L (n = 214/38/22/34) | 5.3(3.6–7.4) | 5.5(3.8–8.5) | 4.9(2.9–7.8) | 5.2(3.8–7.2) | 0.20 |
| %HGS baseline (n = 215/39/22/36) | 93.0(66.0–126.6) | 74.1(55.6–103.7) | 74.4 (50.3–108.7) | 69.8(46.5–89.4) | |
| %HGS, after follow-up, (n = 221/40/24/36) | 95.3(66.8–125.9) | 79.1(64.1–113.4) | 74.8(51.2–115.1) | 67.1(38.8–96.7) | |
| BMI, baseline, kg/m2 | 25.7(21.3–31.4) | 23.4(19.5–32.4) | 24.9(18.7–31.0) | 21.4(17.4–27.3) | |
| BMI, after follow-up, kg/m2 (n = 222/40/24/36) | 25.4(21.5–31.6) | 24.7(21.0–31.9) | 23.2(17.8–27.4) | 21.5(16.7–27.4) | |
| LBMI, baseline, kg/m2 (n = 193/31/18/29) | 17.4(14.4–20.5) | 16.9(13.8–21.0) | 16.5(13.1–19.0) | 14.9(12.0–17.4) | |
| LBMI, after follow-up, kg/m2 (n = 179/29/19/29) | 17.1(14.5–20.4) | 16.4(14.0–18.8) | 15.8(12.1–17.6) | 14.2(11.4–16.6) | |
| FBMI, baseline, kg/m2 (n = 193/31/18/29) | 8.0(4.7–12.0) | 7.5(4.2–14.3) | 7.3(3.6–13.7) | 6.0(3.8–9.8) | |
| FBMI, after follow-up, kg/m2 (n = 179/29/19/29) | 7.9(5.0–11.0) | 7.8(5.5–12.7) | 7.3(3.4–10.0) | 6.5(3.3–11.5) | 0.05 |
Data are presented as medians (range of 10th–90th percentiles). Abbreviations: S-Albumin, serum albumin; hsCRP, high sensitivity C-reactive protein; % HGS, handgrip strength as percentage of controls; BMI, body mass index; LBMI, lean body mass index; FBMI, fat body mass index.
a Groups were defined as: Group WN-WN, patients who remained well-nourished during follow up; Group MN-WN, patients who were improved with nutritional status during follow up; Group WN-MN, patients who developed PEW SGA during the follow-up; Group MN-MN, patients who remained with PEW SGA at baseline and at follow-up.
b compared with baseline level, p<0.001;
c compared with baseline level, p<0.05
Fig 2Kaplan—Meier plot for all-cause mortality of the four groups of patients according to the nutritional status change assessed by SGA.
Abbreviations: Group 1 WN-WN, patients who remained well-nourished during follow up; Group 2 MN-WN, patients who were improved with nutritional status during follow up; Group 3 WN-MN, patients who developed PEWSGA during the follow-up; Group 4 MN-MN, patients who remained with PEWSGA at baseline and at follow-up.
All-cause mortality risk for death occurring within 60 months based on imputed follow-up data in 323 incident dialysis patients, adjusted for all confounders, and expressed as relative risk ratio (95% CI).
| Relative Risk Ratio (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|
| Group 2 MN-WN versus Group 1 WN-WN | 1.13(1.00–1.27) | 0.05 |
| Group 3 WN-MN versus Group 1 WN-WN | 1.15(1.00–1.33) | 0.05 |
| Group 4 MN-MN versus Group 1 WN-WN | 1.29(1.13–1.46) | |
| Age> 60 versus <60 years | 1.08(0.99–1.17) | 0.08 |
| Gender, male versus female | 0.98(0.90–1.07) | 0.68 |
| Diabetes mellitus, presence versus absence | 1.11(1.02–1.21) | |
| CVD, presence versus absence | 1.09 (1.00–1.19) | 0.06 |
| % HGS, >77.78 versus <77.78 | 1.16(1.07–1.27) | |
| LBMI >16.7 versus < 16.7 kg/m2
| 0.98(0.89–1.07) | 0.62 |
| Albumin >33 versus <33 g/L | 1.10(1.02–1.19) | |
| hsCRP > 6.1 versus < 6.1 mg/L | 1.06(0.98–1.15) | 0.16 |
| Recruitment year, 2003–2014 versus 1994–2002 | 0.91(0.84–0.98) | |
| Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis | 1.02(0.95–1.10) | 0.64 |
Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; Group 1 WN-WN, patients who remained well-nourished during follow up; Group 2 MN-WN, patients who were improved with nutritional status during follow up; Group 3 WN-MN, patients who developed PEWSGA during the follow-up; Group 4 MN-MN, patients who remained with PEWSGA at baseline and at follow-up; CVD, cardiovascular disease; % HGS, handgrip strength as percentage of the controls; LBMI, lean body mass index; hsCRP, high sensitivity C-reactive protein
a The median follow-up time of the 323 incident dialysis patients was 12.6 months.
b Cut-offs defined by ROC curve analysis.