4.7 Article

Dynapenic abdominal obesity as predictor of mortality and disability worsening in older adults: A 10-year prospective study

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 199-204

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.02.005

关键词

Sarcopenic obesity; Muscle strength; Dynapenia; Disability; Mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are relatively few prospective studies evaluating the combined effect of abdominal obesity and low muscle strength on worsening disability and on mortality. The study aimed at evaluating prospectively the prognostic value of dynapenic abdominal obesity definition on disability worsening in a 5.5-year follow-up and mortality in a 10-year follow-up. Methods: In 93 men and 169 women aged between 66 and 78 years, leg isometric strength, waist circumference (WC), BMI, glycemia, HOMA, lipid profile, vitamin D3, albumin, fibrinogen, physical activity level, income, smoking status and comorbidities were evaluated at the baseline. Reported disabilities were measured at baseline, 1-y, 2-y, 3-y and 5.5-y follow-up and mortality rate was evaluated during a 10-y follow-up. The study population was categorized in dynapenic abdominal obese (D/AO), nondynapenic abdominal obese (ND/AO), dynapenic nonabdominal obese (D/NAO), nondynapenic nonabdominal obese (ND/NAO) according to muscle strength/WC tertiles. Results: D/NAO subjects presented a disability worsening risk of 1.69 times (95%CI:1.11-2.57), ND/A0 subjects showed a 2-fold increase in risk (95%CI:1.34-2.98), while being D/AO more than trebled the risk, even after considering confounding variables (HR:3.39,95%CI:1.91-6.02). Mortality risk after adjustment for other confounding variables was 1.57 (95%CI:1.16-2.13) for ND/AO and 2.46 (95%CI:1.34-4.52) for D/AO. Conclusions: Dynapenic abdominal obese subjects are at higher risk of worsening disability and mortality than subjects with dynapenia or central fat distribution only. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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