4.1 Article

Physical activity is associated with nutritional biomarkers in hemodialysis patients: A cross-sectional study

Journal

THERAPEUTIC APHERESIS AND DIALYSIS
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 924-931

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1744-9987.13782

Keywords

chronic kidney disease; kidney replacement therapy; nutritional biomarkers; physical activity

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Apoio a Pesquisa do Distrito Federal (FAPDF) [0193.001.558/2017]
  2. Pro-Reitoria de Extensao (PROEX) of the University Center ICESP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that in hemodialysis patients, nutritional biomarkers such as albumin and albumin/globulin ratio were associated with physical activity levels, and these markers were lower in sedentary patients.
Objective To explore the association between physical activity levels and nutritional biomarkers in hemodialysis patients. Methods Eighty-six patients responded to the short version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire to estimate the metabolic equivalent of tasks (MET) per week. A MET-min per week <600 was considered as sedentary. The nutritional biomarkers (i.e., albumin, globulin, and albumin/globulin ratio) were collected. Results Sixty-five patients (75.6%) were sedentary. Binary logistic regression showed that patients with low albumin levels had an 89% lower chance to be physically active (p = 0.037), but it was not significant in the adjusted analysis (p = 0.052). Albumin and albumin/globulin ratio levels were correlated with MET-min per week (r = 0.34 and 0.30; both p < 0.05). Additionally, lower median albumin and albumin/globulin ratio levels were found in the sedentary patients (p = 0.021 and p = 0.031), respectively. Conclusion The physical activity levels were associated with albumin and albumin/globulin ratio, surrogates of nutritional status in hemodialysis patients. These nutritional biomarkers were lower in sedentary patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available