4.4 Article

Waist circumference as a predictor of mortality in peritoneal dialysis patients: a follow-up study of 48 months

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 117, 期 9, 页码 1299-1303

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114517001179

关键词

Waist circumference; Abdominal obesity; Peritoneal dialysis; Chronic kidney disease; Mortality

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
  2. FAPESP [06/56124-6]
  3. Oswaldo Ramos Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Body-fat gain is a common finding among peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, and the accumulation of adipose tissue occurs predominantly in the abdominal area. Waist circumference (WC) is a reliable marker of abdominal obesity and its association with worse outcomes has been demonstrated in non-dialysis and haemodialysis patients. We aimed at investigating whether WC measurements as well as the changes over time in WC were able to predict mortality in PD patients. This prospective study included 109 patients undergoing PD (57 % male, age 52 (sd 16) years, 32 % diabetics, 48 % BMI25 kg/m(2)). WC was measured at the umbilicus level (empty abdominal cavity), and values >88 cm for women and >102 cm for men were considered high. Nutritional status and laboratory parameters were also evaluated. WC was measured at baseline and after 6 months, and mortality was registered during a period of 48 months. High WC was observed in 55 % of women and in 23 % of men at baseline. After 6 months, 61 % of the patients showed an increased WC. At the end of the study, twenty-seven deaths were registered. A significant increase in WC was observed only in the non-survivor group. In the Cox regression analysis adjusting for sex, age, duration on dialysis, diabetes, BMI, serum albumin and C-reactive protein, high WC at baseline as well as the 6-month increase in WC were independently associated with mortality. This study demonstrated that a high WC and the increase over time in WC were both predictors of mortality in PD 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

4.4
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