4.5 Article

Sarcopenia as a mortality predictor in community-dwelling older adults: a comparison of the diagnostic criteria of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 74, 期 4, 页码 573-580

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41430-019-0508-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/objectives The definition of sarcopenia remains a matter of discussion and there is no globally accepted consensus for its diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of sarcopenia diagnostic components on mortality, as well as to compare the associations between sarcopenia diagnosed via the 2010 and 2018 Consensuses of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) and mortality. Methods Prospective cohort study involving noninstitutionalized older adults aged >= 60 years. For the diagnosis of sarcopenia, the definitions proposed by the 2010 (EWGSOP) and 2018 (EWGSOP2) Consensuses were used. The diagnostic components corresponded to muscle mass, muscular strength, and physical performance. The associations of sarcopenia and its components with mortality were investigated using Cox proportional hazard regression models. Results The sample consisted of 1291 older adults. After an average of 2.6 years of follow-up, 88 (6.8%) participants had died. The diagnosis of severe sarcopenia by both Consensuses was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Severe sarcopenia was associated with an increased risk of death compared with that in people without sarcopenia when using EWGSOP (hazard ratio (HR) 3.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.44-6.90) and EWGSOP2 (HR 4.11, 95% CI 1.88-9.00). Older adults with decreased gait speed had a 76% higher risk of dying (p = 0.033). There was no statistically significant association between the other sarcopenia components and mortality risk. Conclusions Older adults with severe sarcopenia and those with changes in physical performance had an increased risk of death in the short term.

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

4.5
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