比较生物阻抗光谱法和传统肌酐动力学法评估腹膜透析患者的肌肉质量。

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Clinical Kidney Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-21 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1093/ckj/sfae315
Lixing Xu, Jack Kit-Chung Ng, Gordon Chun-Kau Chan, Winston Wing-Shing Fung, Kai-Ming Chow, Cheuk-Chun Szeto
{"title":"比较生物阻抗光谱法和传统肌酐动力学法评估腹膜透析患者的肌肉质量。","authors":"Lixing Xu, Jack Kit-Chung Ng, Gordon Chun-Kau Chan, Winston Wing-Shing Fung, Kai-Ming Chow, Cheuk-Chun Szeto","doi":"10.1093/ckj/sfae315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sarcopenia is a common and serious problem in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). Lean tissue mass (LTM) by bioimpedance spectrometry is a reasonably accurate method for measuring muscle mass. Fat-free edema-free body mass (FEBM) as determined by the creatinine kinetics method is a traditional method but evidence to support its use is limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We studied 198 new PD patients. Their serial LTM and FEBM were reviewed and compared by the Bland and Altman method. Multi-variable regression model was used to determine factors associated with the disparity between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant but moderate correlation between LTM and FEBM (r = 0.309, <i>P</i> < .0001). LTM was consistently higher than FEBM, with an average difference 13.98 kg (95% confidence interval -5.90 to 33.86 kg), and the difference strongly correlated with LTM (r = 0.781, <i>P</i> < .0001). By multivariable linear regression analysis, LTM and residual renal function were independent predictors of the LTM-FEBM difference. Where the measurements were repeated in 12 months, there was no significant correlation between ∆LTM and ∆FEBM (r = -0.031, <i>P</i> = .799).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a significant difference between LTM and FFBM. This discrepancy correlated with LTM and residual renal function, highlighting the limitations of FFBM in assessing skeletal muscle mass.</p>","PeriodicalId":10435,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Kidney Journal","volume":"17 11","pages":"sfae315"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536771/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing bioimpedance spectrometry and traditional creatinine kinetics methods for the assessment of muscle mass in peritoneal dialysis patients.\",\"authors\":\"Lixing Xu, Jack Kit-Chung Ng, Gordon Chun-Kau Chan, Winston Wing-Shing Fung, Kai-Ming Chow, Cheuk-Chun Szeto\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ckj/sfae315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sarcopenia is a common and serious problem in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). Lean tissue mass (LTM) by bioimpedance spectrometry is a reasonably accurate method for measuring muscle mass. Fat-free edema-free body mass (FEBM) as determined by the creatinine kinetics method is a traditional method but evidence to support its use is limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We studied 198 new PD patients. Their serial LTM and FEBM were reviewed and compared by the Bland and Altman method. Multi-variable regression model was used to determine factors associated with the disparity between the two methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant but moderate correlation between LTM and FEBM (r = 0.309, <i>P</i> < .0001). LTM was consistently higher than FEBM, with an average difference 13.98 kg (95% confidence interval -5.90 to 33.86 kg), and the difference strongly correlated with LTM (r = 0.781, <i>P</i> < .0001). By multivariable linear regression analysis, LTM and residual renal function were independent predictors of the LTM-FEBM difference. Where the measurements were repeated in 12 months, there was no significant correlation between ∆LTM and ∆FEBM (r = -0.031, <i>P</i> = .799).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a significant difference between LTM and FFBM. This discrepancy correlated with LTM and residual renal function, highlighting the limitations of FFBM in assessing skeletal muscle mass.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Kidney Journal\",\"volume\":\"17 11\",\"pages\":\"sfae315\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536771/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Kidney Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfae315\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Kidney Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfae315","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在接受腹膜透析(PD)的患者中,"肌肉疏松症 "是一个常见且严重的问题。生物阻抗光谱法测定的瘦组织质量(LTM)是一种相当准确的肌肉质量测量方法。通过肌酐动力学法测定的无脂肪无水肿体质量(FEBM)是一种传统方法,但支持其使用的证据有限:我们研究了 198 名新的帕金森病患者。方法:我们研究了 198 名新的帕金森病患者,采用 Bland 和 Altman 方法对他们的序列 LTM 和 FEBM 进行了回顾和比较。采用多变量回归模型确定两种方法之间差异的相关因素:结果:LTM 和 FEBM 之间存在明显的中度相关性(r = 0.309,P P = 0.799):结论:LTM 和 FFBM 之间存在明显差异。结论:LTM 和 FFBM 之间存在明显差异,这种差异与 LTM 和残余肾功能相关,凸显了 FFBM 在评估骨骼肌质量方面的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing bioimpedance spectrometry and traditional creatinine kinetics methods for the assessment of muscle mass in peritoneal dialysis patients.

Background: Sarcopenia is a common and serious problem in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). Lean tissue mass (LTM) by bioimpedance spectrometry is a reasonably accurate method for measuring muscle mass. Fat-free edema-free body mass (FEBM) as determined by the creatinine kinetics method is a traditional method but evidence to support its use is limited.

Methods: We studied 198 new PD patients. Their serial LTM and FEBM were reviewed and compared by the Bland and Altman method. Multi-variable regression model was used to determine factors associated with the disparity between the two methods.

Results: There was a significant but moderate correlation between LTM and FEBM (r = 0.309, P < .0001). LTM was consistently higher than FEBM, with an average difference 13.98 kg (95% confidence interval -5.90 to 33.86 kg), and the difference strongly correlated with LTM (r = 0.781, P < .0001). By multivariable linear regression analysis, LTM and residual renal function were independent predictors of the LTM-FEBM difference. Where the measurements were repeated in 12 months, there was no significant correlation between ∆LTM and ∆FEBM (r = -0.031, P = .799).

Conclusion: There is a significant difference between LTM and FFBM. This discrepancy correlated with LTM and residual renal function, highlighting the limitations of FFBM in assessing skeletal muscle mass.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Kidney Journal
Clinical Kidney Journal Medicine-Transplantation
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
10.90%
发文量
242
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: About the Journal Clinical Kidney Journal: Clinical and Translational Nephrology (ckj), an official journal of the ERA-EDTA (European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association), is a fully open access, online only journal publishing bimonthly. The journal is an essential educational and training resource integrating clinical, translational and educational research into clinical practice. ckj aims to contribute to a translational research culture among nephrologists and kidney pathologists that helps close the gap between basic researchers and practicing clinicians and promote sorely needed innovation in the Nephrology field. All research articles in this journal have undergone peer review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信