Masaaki Yanishi1,2, Hidefumi Kinoshita3, Hiroyasu Tsukaguchi4, Yutaka Kimura5, Yuya Koito3, Motohiko Sugi3, Tadashi Matsuda3. 1. Department of Urology and Andrology, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan. masaaki.yanishi@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology and Andrology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kansai Medical University, 2-5-1 Shinmachi, Hirakata, Osaka, 573-1010, Japan. masaaki.yanishi@gmail.com. 3. Department of Urology and Andrology, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan. 4. 2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan. 5. Health Science Center, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Measuring muscle mass is an important step in detecting sarcopenia. The evaluation of sarcopenia is also important for kidney transplant recipients. Methods for estimating muscle mass have been established using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, which are considered the gold standards. But these methods are invasive and costly, and there is a need for a more practical and simple method using blood samples from kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: The study population was 62 patients who underwent kidney transplantation at Kansai Medical University Hospital, and were evaluated from August to October 2017. Muscle mass was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Serum creatinine and cystatin C levels were measured by immunoassay. RESULTS: We analyzed 62 transplant recipients who met the inclusion criteria (20 females and 42 males, mean age of 45.6 ± 12.7 years). The creatinine/cystatin C ratio in the male group was > 1, whereas the creatinine/cystatin C ratio in the female group was < 1. Muscle mass was significantly larger in the male group than the female group. There was a significant positive correlation between the skeletal muscle index and creatinine/cystatin C ratio in the male (r = 0.553; p < 0.001) and female groups (r = 0.675; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The creatinine/cystatin C ratio is appropriate for evaluating muscle mass in kidney transplant recipients.
INTRODUCTION: Measuring muscle mass is an important step in detecting sarcopenia. The evaluation of sarcopenia is also important for kidney transplant recipients. Methods for estimating muscle mass have been established using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, which are considered the gold standards. But these methods are invasive and costly, and there is a need for a more practical and simple method using blood samples from kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: The study population was 62 patients who underwent kidney transplantation at Kansai Medical University Hospital, and were evaluated from August to October 2017. Muscle mass was measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Serum creatinine and cystatin C levels were measured by immunoassay. RESULTS: We analyzed 62 transplant recipients who met the inclusion criteria (20 females and 42 males, mean age of 45.6 ± 12.7 years). The creatinine/cystatin C ratio in the male group was > 1, whereas the creatinine/cystatin C ratio in the female group was < 1. Muscle mass was significantly larger in the male group than the female group. There was a significant positive correlation between the skeletal muscle index and creatinine/cystatin C ratio in the male (r = 0.553; p < 0.001) and female groups (r = 0.675; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The creatinine/cystatin C ratio is appropriate for evaluating muscle mass in kidney transplant recipients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Creatinine; Cystatin C; Kidney transplantation; Muscle mass
Authors: E Coll; A Botey; L Alvarez; E Poch; L Quintó; A Saurina; M Vera; C Piera; A Darnell Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 8.860
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: Patricia M Sheean; Sarah J Peterson; Sandra Gomez Perez; Karen L Troy; Ankur Patel; Joy S Sclamberg; Folabomi C Ajanaku; Carol A Braunschweig Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Tom Greene; Liang Li; Gerald J Beck; Marshall M Joffe; Marc Froissart; John W Kusek; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: C Cooper; R Fielding; M Visser; L J van Loon; Y Rolland; E Orwoll; K Reid; S Boonen; W Dere; S Epstein; B Mitlak; Y Tsouderos; A A Sayer; R Rizzoli; J Y Reginster; J A Kanis Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Ezequiel Mauro; Juan Manuel Diaz; Lucrecia Garcia-Olveira; Juan Carlos Spina; Lorena Savluk; Fernanda Zalazar; Julia Saidman; Martin De Santibañes; Juan Pekolj; Eduardo De Santibañes; Gonzalo Crespo; Juan G Abraldes; Adrían Gadano Journal: Hepatol Commun Date: 2022-03-03
Authors: Geraldo José de Amorim; Cinthia Katiane Martins Calado; Bruno Carlos Souza de Oliveira; Renata Patricia Oliveira Araujo; Tayrine Ordonio Filgueira; Matheus Santos de Sousa Fernandes; Angela Castoldi; Gisele Vajgel; Lucila Maria Valente; José Luiz de Lima-Filho; Paulo Roberto Cavalcanti Carvalho; Fabricio Oliveira Souto Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-04-07
Authors: Qing Yang; Mei Zhang; Peng Sun; Yanying Li; Huichao Xu; Kejun Wang; Hongshan Shen; Bo Ban; Fupeng Liu Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2021-11
Authors: O Alison Potok; Joachim H Ix; Michael G Shlipak; Nisha Bansal; Ronit Katz; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Dena E Rifkin Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2022-01-25