4.6 Article

Conflicting Role of Sarcopenia and Obesity in Male Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110448

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the impact of sarcopenia and obesity on pulmonary function and quality of life (QOL) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Research Design and Methods: Data were obtained from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, including data from health interviews, health examinations, nutritional questionnaires, and laboratory findings. Laboratory data included pulmonary function assessment and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry results. Sarcopenia was measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, and obesity was defined by body mass index. Male COPD patients were then classified into 4 groups according to the presence of sarcopenia and obesity. Results: In male patients with COPD, the prevalence of sarcopenia was found to be 29.3%, and that of sarcopenic obesity was 14.2%. Furthermore, 22.5% of the patients observed in this study had impaired QOL. Following multivariable statistical analysis, both sarcopenia and obesity were independent risk factors for worsening lung function. Adjusted values of forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second were the lowest in the sarcopenic obesity group. Sarcopenia was also associated with more subjective activity limitation and poorer QOL; however obesity was related to less subjective limitation and better QOL after multivariable analysis. Adjusted value of QOL was the lowest in sarcopenic subjects without obesity, and the highest in obese subject without sarcopenia. Conclusions: Both sarcopenia and obesity were found to be associated with worsening lung function in male COPD patients. However, obesity was positively correlated with improved QOL while sarcopenia was negatively correlated with QQL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据