Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Higher body mass index (BMI) is associated with lower mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. However, it is yet unclear which body component is responsible for this relationship.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sufficient protein intake is of great importance in hemodialysis (HD) patients, especially for maintaining muscle mass. Daily protein needs are generally estimated using bodyweight (BW), in which individual differences in body composition are not accounted for. As body protein mass is best represented by fat free mass (FFM), there is a rationale to apply FFM instead of BW. The agreement between both estimations is unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare protein needs based on either FFM or BW in HD patients.METHODS: Protein needs were estimated in 115 HD patients by three different equations; FFM, BW and BW adjusted for low or high BMI. FFM was measured by multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy and considered the reference method. Estimations of FFM x 1.5 g/kg and FFM x 1.9 g/kg were compared with (adjusted)BW x 1.2 and x 1.5, respectively. Differences were assessed with repeated measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman plots.RESULTS: Mean protein needs estimated by (adjusted)BW were higher compared to those based on FFM, across all BMI categories (P < 0.01) and most explicitly in obese patients. In females with BMI >30, protein needs were 69 ± 17.4 g/day higher based on BW and 45 ± 9.3 g/day higher based on BMI adjusted BW, compared to FFM. In males with BMI >30, protein needs were 51 ± 20.4 g/day and 23 ± 20.9 g/day higher compared to FFM, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Our data show large differences and possible overestimations of protein needs when comparing BW to FFM. We emphasize the importance of more research and discussion on this topic.
BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients, muscle loss is associated with adverse outcomes. Raw bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) parameters (eg, phase angle [PA] and impedance ratio [IR]) have received attention as potential markers of muscularity, nutrition status, and clinical outcomes. Our objective was to test whether PA and IR could be used to assess low muscularity and predict clinical outcomes.METHODS: Patients (≥18 years) having an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan and admitted to intensive care underwent multifrequency BIA within 72 hours of scan. CT scans were landmarked at the third lumbar vertebra and analyzed for skeletal muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). CSA ≤170 cm(2) for males and ≤110 cm(2) for females defined low muscularity. The relationship between PA (and IR) and CT muscle CSA was evaluated using multivariate regression and included adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and admission type. PA and IR were also evaluated for predicting discharge status using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry-derived cut-points for low fat-free mass index.RESULTS: Of 171 potentially eligible patients, 71 had BIA and CT scans within 72 hours. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (c-index) curve to predict CT-defined low muscularity was 0.67 (P ≤ .05) for both PA and IR. With covariates added to logistic regression models, PA and IR c-indexes were 0.78 and 0.76 (P < .05), respectively. Low PA and high IR predicted time to live ICU discharge.CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the potential utility of PA and IR as markers to identify patients with low muscularity who may benefit from early and rigorous intervention.