4.3 Article

The sarcopenia index: A novel measure of muscle mass in lung transplant candidates

期刊

CLINICAL TRANSPLANTATION
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13182

关键词

creatinine; cystatin C; lung transplant; muscle mass; nutrition; sarcopenia index

资金

  1. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health [K23HL128859]
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [K23HL128859] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundFrailty, including low muscle mass, is an emerging risk factor for poor outcomes after lung transplant. The sarcopenia index (SI)(serum creatinine value/cystatin C value)x100is a novel blood test to approximate muscle mass. We sought to validate SI among lung transplant patients. MethodsWe retrospectively identified adult lung transplant recipients from 2000 through 2012 at our institution who underwent computed tomography within 1year before transplant and had preserved blood samples. Creatinine and cystatin C values were measured using the samples and used to calculate SI. Muscle mass was estimated by computed tomographic measurement of skeletal muscle cross-sectional surface area (SA) at the L1 to L3 vertebral levels. Correlation between SI and SA was evaluated. ResultsOf 28 patients meeting eligibility criteria, most were white (96%) and men (54%). Median (interquartile range) body mass index, SI, and SA were 25.9 (22-30) kg/m(2), 106 (91-119), and 157 (113-195) cm2, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient between SI and SA was significant at L2 (0.43; P=.02) and L3 (0.41; P=.03). ConclusionSarcopenia index is a potentially objective measure for estimating muscle mass that is noninvasive and less expensive. Sarcopenia index could be considered in lung transplant candidate selection following prospective validation in larger cohorts.

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

4.3
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