4.3 Article

Is the prevalence of dehydration among community-dwelling older adults really low? Informing current debate over the fluid recommendation for adults aged 70+years

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 1275-1285

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1079/PHN2005829

关键词

aged; chronic disease; dehydration; diet; tonicity; prevalence

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [1R01 AG12765, AG00029, N01 AG-12102, AG11268] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The fluid recommendation for adults aged 70+ years has been criticised on the basis of a low prevalence of dehydration in community-dwelling older adults. This study explores whether the low prevalence might reflect limitations of individual dehydration indices. Design: Cross-sectional data on plasma sodium, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine, glucose and potassium were used to classify 1737 participants of the 1992 Established Populations for Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly (EPESE) (70+ years) according to multiple dehydration indices. Associations between dehydration indices, health and functional status were evaluated. Results: Depending on the indicator used, the prevalence of dehydration ranged from 0.5% for hypotonic hypovolaemia only (plasma tonicity < 285 mOsm l(-1) with orthostatic hypotension) to 60% with dehydration defined as either plasma sodium g145 mEq l(-1), BUN/creatinine ratio g20, tonicity g295 mOsm l(-1), or hypotonic hypovolaemia. Elevated tonicity and BUN/creatinine ratio were respectively associated with chronic disease and functional impairment. Conclusions: The true prevalence of dehydration among community-dwelling adults may be low or high, depending on the indicator(s) used to define dehydration. Before we can pinpoint a generalisable prevalence of dehydration for community-dwelling seniors and draw conclusions about fluid recommendations, validation studies of dehydration indices and longitudinal studies of dehydration, health and functional status are needed.

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