4.2 Article

Differences in the prevalence of sarcopenia in haemodialysis patients: the effects of gender and ethnicity

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 689-696

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jhn.12555

关键词

chronic kidney disease; haemodialysis; hand grip strength; muscle strength; sarcopenia

资金

  1. International Society of Nephrology educational scholarships

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThere is no universal consensus definition of sarcopenia, although there is agreement that sarcopenia is a risk factor for mortality in haemodialysis (HD) patients. We aimed to determine the effect of using different operational definitions in a multiracial group of HD patients. MethodsWe measured hand grip strength (HGS) and appendicular lean mass (ALM) by segmental bioimpedance using the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project (FNIH), European Working Group on Sarcopenia (EWGS) and Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia definitions for HGS weakness and loss of appendicular lean mass. ResultsIn total, there were 600 HD patients: 373 men (62.2%), mean (SD) age 66.3 (14.7) years, 45.6% diabetic, ethnicity: 281 (48.5%) White, 167 (27.8%) Asian and 149 (24.8%) Black. On HGS criteria, 90.5% of Asian women and 88.5% of Asian men were weak according to EWGS compared to 62.3% of Black women and 52.5% of Black men and 64.5% of White women and 69.1% of White men by FNIH criteria (P < 0.001). On adding appendicular lean mass, the prevalence of sarcopenia was 68.3% for Asian, 27.1% for Black and 36.6% for White women by FNIH and 59.6% Asian, 21.3% Black and 39.9% White men by EWGS criteria. ConclusionsCurrent definitions of sarcopenia report a greater prevalence of muscle weakness compared to appendicular muscle loss in female compared to male HD patients and this is greater for Asian compared to Black and White patients. Because HGS weakness is a greater risk for death, definitions of sarcopenia may underestimate risk in HD 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

4.2
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