4.5 Article

Assessing cachexia in older patients: Different definitions - But which one is the most practical for clinical routine?

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
Volume 86, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2019.103943

Keywords

Cachexia; Malnutrition; Weight loss; Cancer; Body composition; Muscle mass

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Patients with chronic inflammatory diseases and malignant tumors have an increased risk of cachexia. No consistent definition exists to rapidly identify cachexia in older patients with and without cancer. Methods: One-hundred patients (53% male) aged 70 + years were included in the study by a university hospital. In addition to the detection of malnutrition and determination of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis, cachexia was assessed according to the well-established definitions of Evans (weight loss >= 5% within the last 12 months plus additional clinical parameters), Fearon (weight loss > 5% in 6 months) and Bozzetti (weight loss >= 10% of habitual weight). After a follow-up of 3.5 years, the mortality rate was recorded. Results: Thirty-three patients had a malignant tumor disease. The patients with a non-malignant underlying disease did not differ in their mental state, physical condition and state of health compared to patients with cancer. A higher percentage of patients with underlying malignancy had cachexia. There were significant differences in the body composition between the patients with or without cachexia. Cachectic patients exhibited a significantly lower skeletal muscle mass and fat mass. The risk of death was increased in cachectic patients of all three cachexia definitions. Conclusion: For clinical daily routine, the assessments by a weight loss according to Fearon and Bozzetti are suggested to be practicable methods to detect cachexia in older patients with and without cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available