4.7 Review

Diagnosis, prevalence, and mortality of sarcopenia in dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CACHEXIA SARCOPENIA AND MUSCLE
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 145-158

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.12890

关键词

Sarcopenia; Dialysis; Diagnosis; Prevalence; Mortality

资金

  1. Chinese National Science & Technology Pillar Program [2020YFC2005600/02]
  2. Sichuan Province Science and Technology Support Program [2019YFS0277, 2021YFS0136]
  3. 1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence-Clinical Research Incubation Project, West China Hospital, Sichuan University [19HXFH012]
  4. 1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University [ZYJC21005]
  5. National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University [Z20191003, Z2018B13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is no consensus on the prevalence and impact of sarcopenia in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing dialysis. This review aimed to summarize the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, and impact of sarcopenia on mortality in these patients. The results showed that sarcopenia is highly prevalent in dialysis patients and is associated with increased mortality risk. Standardization of diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia is necessary, and further longitudinal studies are needed to investigate its prevalence and prognostic value in dialysis patients.
There is no consensus on the prevalence of sarcopenia or its impact on mortality in end-stage renal disease patients undergoing dialysis. This review aimed to summarize the diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia and its prevalence and impact on the mortality of end-stage renal disease patients undergoing dialysis. Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 8 May 2021 to retrieve eligible studies that assessed muscle mass by commonly used instruments, such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance analysis, magnetic resonance imaging, and body composition monitor. Two assessment tools matched to study designs were employed to evaluate study quality. Pooled sarcopenia prevalence was calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity was estimated using the I-2 test. Associations of sarcopenia with mortality were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. The search identified 3272 studies, and 30 studies (6162 participants, mean age from 47.5 to 77.5 years) were analysed in this review. The risk of bias in the included studies was low to moderate. Twenty-two studies defined sarcopenia based on low muscle mass (LMM) plus low muscle strength and/or low physical performance, while eight studies used LMM alone. Muscle mass was assessed by different instruments, and a wide range of cut-off points were used to define LMM. Overall, sarcopenia prevalence was 28.5% (95% CI 22.9-34.1%) and varied from 25.9% (I-2 = 94.9%, 95% CI 20.4-31.3%; combined criteria) to 34.6% (I-2 = 98.1%, 95% CI 20.9-48.2%; LMM alone) (P = 0.247 between subgroups). The statistically significant differences were not found in the subgroups of diagnostic criteria (P > 0.05) and dialysis modality (P > 0.05). Additionally, the sarcopenia prevalence could not be affected by average age [regression coefficient 0.004 (95% CI: -0.005 to 0.012), P = 0.406] and dialysis duration [regression coefficient 0.002 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.005), P = 0.327] in the meta-regression. The pooled analyses showed that combined criteria of sarcopenia were related to a higher mortality risk [HR 1.82 (I-2 = 26.3%, 95% CI 1.38-2.39)], as was LMM [HR 1.61 (I-2 = 26.0%, 95% CI 1.31-1.99)] and low muscle strength [HR 2.04 (I-2 = 80.4%, 95% CI 1.19-3.5)]. Although there are substantial differences in diagnostic criteria, sarcopenia is highly prevalent in dialysis patients and is linked to increased mortality. The standardization of sarcopenia diagnostic criteria would be beneficial, and future longitudinal studies are needed to investigate the prevalence and prognostic value of sarcopenia in dialysis patients.

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