A comparison of non-invasive methods of measuring body composition in patients with heart failure: a report from SICA-HF

Shah, P., Abel, A. A.I., Boyalla, V., Pellicori, P. , Kallvikbacka-Bennett, A., Sze, S., Cleland, J. G.F. and Clark, A. L. (2021) A comparison of non-invasive methods of measuring body composition in patients with heart failure: a report from SICA-HF. ESC Heart Failure, 8(5), pp. 3929-3934. (doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13402) (PMID:34216106) (PMCID:PMC8497207)

[img] Text
240870.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

507kB
[img] Text
240870Suppl.pdf - Supplemental Material

300kB

Abstract

Background: Cachexia is common in patients with chronic heart failure and is associated with poor prognosis. How best to measure body composition is not clear. Methods and results: We characterized body composition in 120 patients with chronic heart failure: mean (SD) age 70 (10) years, left ventricular ejection fraction 44 (10) %, and median (Q1–Q3) N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide 845 (355–1368) ng/L. We measured body composition using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) device (Tanita BIA MC-180MA). Mean (SD) fat mass (FM) was 27.2 (11.7) kg by BIA and 32.3 (12.2) kg by DEXA (mean difference −5.1 kg, 95% limits of agreement: −11.7, 1.5; 4% of values outside limit of agreement); mean (SD) lean mass (LM) was 56.6 (10.9) kg by BIA and 51.1 (9.9) kg by DEXA (mean difference 5.5 kg, 95% limits of agreement: −1.3, 12.3; 6% of values outside limit of agreement); and mean (SD) bone mass (BM) was 3.0 (0.5) kg by BIA and 2.8 (0.6) kg by DEXA (mean difference 0.2 kg, 95% limits of agreement: −0.5, 0.8; 5% of values outside limit of agreement). There was a close correlation between DEXA and BIA for both LM and FM (LM: r = 0.95, P < 0.001; FM: r = 0.96, P < 0.001) but less so for BM (r = 0.84, P < 0.001). Both DEXA and BIA body composition measurements correlated well with other measures of body size (body mass index, hip circumference, and waist circumference). Conclusions: There are differences in the measurements of FM, LM, and BM between the two techniques, which should not be used interchangeably.

Item Type:Articles
Additional Information:The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement number 241558 (SICA-HF).
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Cleland, Professor John and Pellicori, Dr Pierpaolo
Creator Roles:
Pellicori, P.Investigation, Data curation
Cleland, J.Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision
Authors: Shah, P., Abel, A. A.I., Boyalla, V., Pellicori, P., Kallvikbacka-Bennett, A., Sze, S., Cleland, J. G.F., and Clark, A. L.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > Robertson Centre
Journal Name:ESC Heart Failure
Publisher:Wiley
ISSN:2055-5822
ISSN (Online):2055-5822
Published Online:03 July 2021
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2021 The Authors
First Published:First published in ESC Heart Failure 8(5): 3929-3934
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record