Literature DB >> 31492456

Identifying critically ill patients with low muscle mass: Agreement between bioelectrical impedance analysis and computed tomography.

Willem G P M Looijaard1, Sandra N Stapel2, Ingeborg M Dekker3, Hanna Rusticus4, Sharon Remmelzwaal5, Armand R J Girbes6, Peter J M Weijs7, Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Low muscle mass and -quality on ICU admission, as assessed by muscle area and -density on CT-scanning at lumbar level 3 (L3), are associated with increased mortality. However, CT-scan analysis is not feasible for standard care. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) assesses body composition by incorporating the raw measurements resistance, reactance, and phase angle in equations. Our purpose was to compare BIA- and CT-derived muscle mass, to determine whether BIA identified the patients with low skeletal muscle area on CT-scan, and to determine the relation between raw BIA and raw CT measurements.
METHODS: This prospective observational study included adult intensive care patients with an abdominal CT-scan. CT-scans were analysed at L3 level for skeletal muscle area (cm2) and skeletal muscle density (Hounsfield Units). Muscle area was converted to muscle mass (kg) using the Shen equation (MMCT). BIA was performed within 72 h of the CT-scan. BIA-derived muscle mass was calculated by three equations: Talluri (MMTalluri), Janssen (MMJanssen), and Kyle (MMKyle). To compare BIA- and CT-derived muscle mass correlations, bias, and limits of agreement were calculated. To test whether BIA identifies low skeletal muscle area on CT-scan, ROC-curves were constructed. Furthermore, raw BIA and CT measurements, were correlated and raw CT-measurements were compared between groups with normal and low phase angle.
RESULTS: 110 patients were included. Mean age 59 ± 17 years, mean APACHE II score 17 (11-25); 68% male. MMTalluri and MMJanssen were significantly higher (36.0 ± 9.9 kg and 31.5 ± 7.8 kg, respectively) and MMKyle significantly lower (25.2 ± 5.6 kg) than MMCT (29.2 ± 6.7 kg). For all BIA-derived muscle mass equations, a proportional bias was apparent with increasing disagreement at higher muscle mass. MMTalluri correlated strongest with CT-derived muscle mass (r = 0.834, p < 0.001) and had good discriminative capacity to identify patients with low skeletal muscle area on CT-scan (AUC: 0.919 for males; 0.912 for females). Of the raw measurements, phase angle and skeletal muscle density correlated best (r = 0.701, p < 0.001). CT-derived skeletal muscle area and -density were significantly lower in patients with low compared to normal phase angle.
CONCLUSIONS: Although correlated, absolute values of BIA- and CT-derived muscle mass disagree, especially in the high muscle mass range. However, BIA and CT identified the same critically ill population with low skeletal muscle area on CT-scan. Furthermore, low phase angle corresponded to low skeletal muscle area and -density. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02555670).
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioelectrical impedance analysis; Computed tomography; Intensive care; Muscle mass; Phase angle; Sarcopenia

Year:  2019        PMID: 31492456     DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.07.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0261-5614            Impact factor:   7.324


  6 in total

1.  The Use of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Measures for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Children.

Authors:  Zi-Hong Xiong; Xue-Mei Zheng; Guo-Ying Zhang; Meng-Jun Wu; Yi Qu
Journal:  Front Nutr       Date:  2022-06-06

2.  Status of adult inpatient burn rehabilitation in Europe: Are we neglecting metabolic outcomes?

Authors:  David R Schieffelers; Eric van Breda; Nick Gebruers; Jill Meirte; Ulrike Van Daele
Journal:  Burns Trauma       Date:  2021-03-01

3.  Muscle weakness as an additional criterion for grading sarcopenia-related prognosis in patients with cancer.

Authors:  Emanuele Cereda; Richard Tancredi; Catherine Klersy; Federica Lobascio; Silvia Crotti; Sara Masi; Silvia Cappello; Nicole Stobäus; Maja Tank; Sara Cutti; Luca Arcaini; Elisabetta Bonzano; Sara Colombo; Paolo Pedrazzoli; Kristina Norman; Riccardo Caccialanza
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 4.452

4.  Does Body Position Influence Bioelectrical Impedance? An Observational Pilot Study.

Authors:  Paweł Więch; Filip Wołoszyn; Patrycja Trojnar; Mateusz Skórka; Dariusz Bazaliński
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 4.614

5.  Prognostic significance of sarcopenia as determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Yuichiro Tozuka; Makoto Ueno; Satoshi Kobayashi; Manabu Morimoto; Taito Fukushima; Yusuke Sano; Kuniyuki Kawano; Akane Hanaoka; Shun Tezuka; Hiroyuki Asama; Satoshi Moriya; Soichiro Morinaga; Shinichi Ohkawa; Shin Maeda
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 3.111

6.  Modulatory Effects of Physical Activity Levels on Immune Responses and General Clinical Functions in Adult Patients with Mild to Moderate SARS-CoV-2 Infections-A Protocol for an Observational Prospective Follow-Up Investigation: Fit-COVID-19 Study.

Authors:  Fábio Santos Lira; Telmo Pereira; Luciele Guerra Minuzzi; Caique Figueiredo; Tiago Olean-Oliveira; Ana Paula Coelho Figueira Freire; Manuel João Coelho-E-Silva; Armando Caseiro; Ronaldo Vagner Thomatieli-Santos; Vanessa Ribeiro Dos Santos; Luis Alberto Gobbo; Marília Seelaender; Karsten Krüger; Ricardo Aurino Pinho; José Cesar Rosa-Neto; Bruna Spolador de Alencar Silva
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 3.390

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.