4.7 Article

Body Fat Percentage and Availability of Oral Food Intake: Prognostic Factors and Implications for Nutrition in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13113704

关键词

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; body fat percentage; oral food intake; survival

资金

  1. Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea [O2106491]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that changes in body fat percentage and availability of oral food intake have a significant impact on survival duration in ALS patients. Higher body fat percentage and availability of oral food intake are prognostic factors for survival in ALS compared to other factors.
Adequate nutritional support and high body mass index (BMI) are good prognostic factors for disease progression and survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). However, whether the composition of body weight, such as body fat percentage, has an independent effect on ALS prognosis remains unclear. The clinical data of 53 ALS patients were collected by medical record review. The data included: disease onset, sex, age, time of diagnosis, survival duration, presence of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), nasogastric tube, tracheostomy, and availability of oral intake throughout the course of the disease, and interval measurement values of body mass by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). The interval change (Delta) of the BIA parameters was calculated by subtracting the follow-up values from the baseline values. Change in body fat percentage/interval between BIA measurements (months) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.374, p = 0.0247), and availability of oral food intake (HR = 0.167, p = 0.02), were statistically significant for survival duration in multivariate hazard proportional regression analysis. Survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves showed similar results. Higher average monthly change in body fat percentage and availability of oral food intake are prognostic factors in ALS survival.

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