Skip to main content
Download PDF

Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by muscle ultrasound: a cross-sectional study in a cohort of patients on chronic hemodialysis

BMC Nephrology volume 25, Article number: 49 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Sarcopenia is a common problem in hemodialysis (HD) patients, and it is diagnosed by low muscle mass, strength and/or low physical performance. Muscle ultrasound (US) is a non-invasive portable tool that might be used for assessment of muscle mass. The aim of the current study was to investigate the concordance between muscle US and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in diagnosis of sarcopenia in HD patients.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 41 HD patients. Sarcopenia was diagnosed according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP). The skeletal mass index was measured by BIA and the muscle strength was measured by handgrip strength. Muscle US was used to measure cross-sectional area (CSA) and thickness of quadriceps and biceps muscles.

Results

The current study included 41 patients on HD (25 males), with a mean (SD) age of 44.18 (13.11) years and a median HD duration of 48 months. Sarcopenia was diagnosed in 58.5% of the patients. Patients with sarcopenia had significantly lower quadriceps muscle CSA than those without sarcopenia. The optimal cut-offs of quadriceps muscle CSA for both males and females for the diagnosis of sarcopenia were 2.96 and 2.92 cm2, respectively.

Conclusion

Sarcopenia is prevalent among Egyptian HD patients. US on quadriceps muscle CSA could be used for diagnosis of sarcopenia in these patients.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) suffer from several metabolic abnormalities. These abnormalities, besides hemodialysis (HD), lead to a reduction of protein synthesis and an increase in protein catabolism, leading to a loss of muscle mass [1].

Irwin Rosenberg proposed the word “sarcopenia” in 1988 to describe the syndrome of muscle loss that affects the elderly [2]. Since then, consensus papers from geriatric societies have established and published a larger definition of sarcopenia which is “syndrome characterized by progressive and generalized loss of muscle mass and strength as well as poor physical performance with a risk of adverse outcomes including physical disability, poor quality of life and death” [3,4,5,6,7]. This syndrome may potentially be associated with the process of aging or other medical conditions, such as chronic kidney disease (CKD). The severity of the condition escalates in proportion to the decline in renal function [8,9,10].

Loss of muscle mass has been proposed as a useful factor for assessment of nutritional status, as it may aid to differentiate between patients with and without protein energy wasting (PEW). The skeletal muscle mass assessment, which is the chief component of lean body mass (LBM), may provide the most consistent data for diagnosing and monitoring PEW [11]. The existing gold standard imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT) scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) are expensive and/or unsuitable for sequential routine use [12]. In addition, anthropometric or biochemical methods are poorly accurate, and they produce scarcely reproducible data for quantitative assessment [12].

Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which is a bedside technique, utilizes the various electrical properties of tissues and body fluids while applying an alternating low intensity electric current; the values of resistance and reactance allow an estimation of total body water and total body cell mass, especially helpful when multiple measurements are taken at the same time [13]. Hand grip strength (HGS) measures the strength of upper body muscle and has a good relation to ‘gold standard’ LBM measurements such as DEXA [14].

Muscle ultrasound (US) can be used for evaluation of muscle mass. Its major advantages, compared to other modalities, are represented by low cost, portability, and lack of radiation exposure [8]. US was utilized to evaluate muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and its validity was established in patients with CKD who were not undergoing dialysis [15].

Due to the high prevalence of sarcopenia in HD patients and its hazardous effects on these patients, there is a need for a diagnostic method that is rapid, non-invasive, portable, and of low-cost. The gold-standard methods of assessing muscle mass such as CT, MRI, DEXA, and BIA are less available, expensive, and/or non-portable. To the best of our knowledge, there are only few studies that have investigated the clinical applicability of muscle US in the assessment of muscle mass [8, 16, 17], and in the diagnosis of sarcopenia in HD patients [18]. Thus, the aim of the current study was to explore the concordance between muscle mass assessed by BIA and by muscle US in maintenance HD patients.

Materials and methods

Patients and settings

This is a cross-sectional observational study that was conducted between August 2022 to February 2023. We included 41 maintenance HD patients who were dialyzed at Mansoura Nephrology and Dialysis Unit (MNDU). Adult patients who were more than 18 years old and who had been on HD for more than 6 months were included in the current study. Patients with physical impairment and significant comorbidities such as unstable hypertension (HTN), history of myocardial infarction, unstable angina, active liver disease, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM), and advanced cerebral or peripheral vascular disease were excluded from the study. Those who had exhibited trauma to or amputation of upper or lower limbs or who were diagnosed with primary neuromuscular disease were also excluded. The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Research Board (IRB) of Mansoura University (Approval number: R.22.07.1768.R1). The study was explained to all the participants, and a signed informed written consent was obtained from them before the start of the study.

Sample size calculation

Sample size was calculated by PASS software for Windows, version 11.0.8. PASS 11. NCSS, LLC, Kaysville, Utah, USA (www.ncss.com). Calculation relied upon a previous study by Battaglia et al. [19], who correlated quadriceps rectus femoris thickness by ultrasound with different body composition by BIA. A sample size of 38 achieves 91% power to detect a Pearson correlation of 0.600 using a two-sided hypothesis test with a significance level of 0.010. These results are based on 5000 Monte Carlo samples from the bivariate normal distribution under the alternative hypothesis.

Sociodemographic and clinical data

The sociodemographic information of the patients, such as their age, gender, and marital status, was gathered. Furthermore, relevant clinical parameters, including the duration since starting HD therapy and the presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) or hypertension (HTN), were recorded.

Blood sampling and laboratory tests

Blood samples were taken from the arteriovenous fistula before starting the first HD session of the week. An automated analyzer was used to perform routine laboratory tests, including blood hemoglobin, serum calcium, phosphorus, albumin, intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH), ferritin, and pre-HD urea. Blood sample for post-HD urea was drawn 15–20 s after the completion of the same HD session using the slow-flow method, then Kt/V was calculated by using the following equation.

Kt/V = [0.026 – Percent Reduction Urea (PRU)] – 0.460. PRU = [1 - (Post-HD urea ÷ Pre-HD urea)] [20].

Muscle strength

Muscle strength was assessed using HGS as a quantitative metric. The hand grip dynamometer was utilized to test the grip strength after the HD session. The measurement was conducted while the patient was in a seated position, with the elbow flexed at a 90-degree angle and the forearm positioned in a neutral orientation. The measurement was conducted on three occasions in the non-fistula arm, and the highest recorded value was selected. The measurement was denoted in kilos [21].

Muscle ultrasound

The ultrasound examinations were conducted by a rheumatologist who has a minimum of 8 years of experience in the domain of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS). The rheumatologist was blind to the clinical information regarding the study participants at the time of the US evaluation. The study utilized the EDAN U2 ultrasound equipment, manufactured in Shenzhen, China, which was equipped with a linear array transducer operating at a frequency range of 8 to 13.4 MHz. The frequency was adjusted to 13 MHz, and the sonographic parameters were optimized to achieve optimal imaging of the scanned muscles. Generous amounts of contact gel were applied to avoid compression of the muscles by the transducer.

Initially, the US was employed to measure the CSA and muscle thickness of the rectus femoris in the dominant quadriceps muscle according to previous studies [22, 23]. The patient was instructed to abstain from engaging in any strenuous physical activity for a period of 72 h. The placement of the transducer involved positioning its long axis in a perpendicular orientation to the dominant leg, specifically at a precise distance of 3/5 of the interval between the anterior superior iliac spine and the superior patellar border. The scanning depth was adjusted with care for the femur’s orientational capacity. In order to locate muscle septa prior to capturing images, the researchers conducted moderate contraction-relaxation maneuvers.

Subsequently, the transducer was positioned at the anatomical midpoint [24] between the elbow crease and the larger tubercle of the humeral head in order to assess the thickness and CSA of the biceps muscle at the dominant hand. The transducer was placed perpendicular to the long axis of the bices muscle with the arm muscles extended and relaxed.

Images of the US were gathered for each individual and subsequently examined using proprietary software. On an image that had been frozen, a moving cursor followed the inner echogenic line of the rectus femoris and the biceps brachii muscles. Subsequently, the measurements of thickness and CSA were ascertained. Three consecutive readings were obtained for each measurement and subsequently averaged. Demonstrative cases are presented in Figs. 1 and 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Rectus femoris muscle thickness. This figure depicts muscle thickness of rectus femoris perpendicular to its longitudinal axis in 35-year-old non sarcopenic male patients on HD for 4 years

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

The imaging measurement of the cross-sectional area in the rectus femoris in the study patients

Full size image

Body composition

Body composition was analyzed using the portable and precise InBody 270 body composition analyzer after the end of HD session. It provides accurate analysis for professionals on the go. It also delivers standard measurements like percent body fat, skeletal muscle mass, basal metabolic rate, and more. It quickly measures fat mass, muscle mass, and body water. It is also auto-calibrated, user-friendly, and non-invasive. The patient just stands on the device and hold the hand electrodes. Direct Segmental Multi-Frequency BIA technology measures body segments separately for an accurate analysis based on patient’s body. The following parameters were yielded from the InBody: Body mass index (BMI), total body water (%), body fat mass (kg), percent body fat (%), fat-free mass (kg), skeletal muscle mass (kg), and skeletal muscle index.

Diagnosis of sarcopenia

According to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) [7], sarcopenia was diagnosed if the following criteria were met: (1) Low muscle mass: the skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) measured by BIA was less than 10.76 kg/m2 and 6.76 kg/m2 in males and females, respectively. (2) Low muscle strength: HGS in males and females was less than 30 kg and 20 kg, respectively. Based on these diagnostic criteria, the patients were divided into two groups: (1) patients with sarcopenia and (2) patients without sarcopenia.

Statistical analysis

The collected data were coded, processed, and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 29 for personal computers. The parametric and non-parametric continuous data were expressed as mean ± SD and median (minimum-maximum), respectively. Categorical data was expressed as a number (percentage). The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test for normality. The chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. An independent t-test was used to compare parametric variables, while the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare non-parametric variables between groups. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was performed to allocate a cut-off point of quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) to predict the presence of sarcopenia in the studied patients, and the cut-off point was chosen relying on the best possible specificity without sacrificing the sensitivity of choice. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The current study included 41 patients (25 (61%) males and 16 (39%) females), with a mean (SD) age of 44.18 (13.11) years and a median HD duration of 48 months. 78% of patients were married. Out of the total sample, a mere two individuals were diagnosed with DM, although a significantly larger proportion of 27 participants were found to have HTN. The patients were classified into two groups: patients with sarcopenia (24 patients, 58.5%) and patients without sarcopenia (17 patients, 41.5%). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of age, gender, marital status, presence of DM and HTN, and the duration since starting HD. Furthermore, the laboratory data did not exhibit any statistically significant differences between the two groups, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1 Sociodemographic, clinical, and laboratory data of the studied patients (n = 41)
Full size table

Regarding body composition data, BMI, total body water, fat-free mass, skeletal muscle mass, and skeletal muscle index were significantly lower in the group of patients with sarcopenia. Patients with sarcopenia had significantly lower HGS than those without sarcopenia. Regarding muscle assessment by US, quadriceps muscle CSA was significantly lower in patients with sarcopenia than those without as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Nutritional, BIA, and muscle US data of the studied patients
Full size table

By constructing ROC analysis to test US measurement of the biceps and quadriceps femoris for detection of sarcopenia. Only the ROC curve of the quadriceps muscle CSA was statistically significant (P = 0.001) with an area under the curve (AUC) for the diagnosis of sarcopenia of 0.741. Using a quadriceps muscle CSA optimal cut-off value of 2.92 for all patients, as determined by the Youden index, the corresponding sensitivity and specificity for detection of sarcopenia were 75% and 73.3%, respectively (Table 3; Fig. 3). The optimal cut-offs of quadriceps muscle CSA for both males and females for the diagnosis of sarcopenia were 2.96 and 2.92 cm2, respectively (Table 3; Fig. 4).

Table 3 ROC curve of different muscle parameters assessed by ultrasound as predictors of sarcopenia
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

ROC curve of different muscle parameters assessed by ultrasound as predictors of sarcopenia. Abbreviations: CSA, cross-sectional area

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

ROC curve of quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area assessed by ultrasound in both males and females as a predictor of sarcopenia

Full size image

Discussion

Sarcopenia is prevalent among HD patients, and it is associated with different health hazards [25, 26]. Its diagnosis depends on an assessment of muscle mass and strength in addition to physical performance [7]. Muscle mass is assessed by several tools including radiological and non-radiological methods [27]. The aim of the current study was to assess the potential of quadriceps muscle thickness and CSA as well as biceps muscle thickness and CSA measured by US as indicators for the presence of sarcopenia in HD patients. Sarcopenia was detected in 58.5% of the studied patients. From all the US measures, only quadriceps muscle CSA was a significant predictor for the diagnosis of sarcopenia in the HD patients, with a cut-off value for the diagnosis of sarcopenia of 2.92 cm2 in all studied patients. In addition, its optimal cut-offs for both males and females for the diagnosis of sarcopenia were 2.96 and 2.92 cm2, respectively.

In the current study, more than half of the patients (58.5%) were diagnosed with sarcopenia. This percentage is higher than reported by Sánchez-Tocino et al. [28] who studied 60 HD patients older than 75 years old and concluded that 37–40% of the patients had confirmed sarcopenia. In addition, this percentage was much higher than that of the study by Abdala et al. [29] who found that 16% of studied patients had sarcopenia. Also, our reported prevalence is slightly higher than that stated by Fu et al. [30] who found that 51.3% of HD patients had confirmed sarcopenia. Furthermore, Anderson et al. found a lower percentage of HD patients, compared to the current results, to have sarcopenia [31]. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 30 studies, reported a wide variation in the prevalence of sarcopenia from 4 to 68% among patients on dialysis [32]. This wide difference in the prevalence of sarcopenia among patients on HD might be due to different patient age groups, socioeconomic characteristics, and locations, in addition to using different diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. In addition, patients’ comorbidities might be attributed to this difference. In the current study, patients with uncontrolled DM were excluded from the study. Only patients with uncomplicated DM were recruited. That was because DM may accelerate the occurrence of sarcopenia. Previous studies reported a strong association between DM and sarcopenia [33].

In the current study, the mean total body water was 36%. This result is consistent with other studies [34,35,36]. In addition, total body water was significantly lower in patients with sarcopenia. There was a proposed relationship between intracellular water and muscle mass that swelling of intracellular compartments might induce glycogen synthesis and intracellular water depletion might result in protein degradation [37, 38]. Thus, lower total body water, including intracellular water, might be related to increased risk of sarcopenia. As the diagnosis of sarcopenia was dependent on assessment of muscle mass, skeletal muscle mass was significantly higher in patients with sarcopenia than those without.

Muscle mass can be assessed by several tools, such as anthropometry, BIA, DEXA, CT, and MRI. Anthropometric measurement represented by mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC), which is derived from mid-arm circumference and triceps skin fold thickness, might be used for evaluation of muscle mass in HD patients [39]. These anthropometric measurements are easy, cheap, applicable, non-invasive, and can be done by bedside examination; however, they have some limitations, such as low reproducibility and reliability, in addition to being affected by other factors such as the hydration status of patients [40]. BIA assesses body composition according to the body resistance to the passage of an alternating electrical current [41]. BIA is non-invasive and easy to perform, in addition to being a bedside technique. However, it is not available at all HD centers, and in certain circumstances, it can be affected by the hydration status of HD patients [42, 43].

Regarding imaging techniques, DEXA can identify different components of body weight in addition to providing both segmental and whole-body parameters of body composition. In addition, DEXA is suggested as the reference method to evaluate muscle mass, particularly appendicular skeletal mass, and for the diagnosis of sarcopenia in the most recent Sarcopenia, Cachexia, and Wasting Disorders position paper [44]. However, DEXA has several limitations, such as being affected by the patients’ hydration status, cost, radiation exposure, the need for an experienced radiology operator, and being non-portable [41]. There are other imaging techniques used for muscle evaluation, such as CT and MRI. They are non-invasive and they are considered the gold standard for evaluation of muscle mass [3, 7]. CT is not influenced by hydration status. It can assess quadriceps muscle CSA and volume in addition to muscle density [45, 46]. On the other hand, CT is expensive, non-portable, exposing patients to ionizing radiation and not available in all HD centers. MRI can be used for assessment of psoas and quadriceps muscle CSA [47]; however, it is expensive, not portable, and not available at all HD centers in addition to needing specialized personnels.

Due to the limitations of the aforementioned methods for evaluating muscle mass, a search for another technique that overcomes these limitations is required. Muscle US is safe, portable, and not expensive [48]. In addition, there is no need to expose patients to ionizing radiation, and it provides real-time visualization of the muscles. Through muscle echogenicity, it can give information about the existence of inflammation, fibrosis, and adipose infiltration [49]. The validity and reliability of muscle US have been well supported in the renal setting for the evaluation of quadriceps muscle CSA and thickness. Souza et al. [50] have concluded that in patients with pre-dialysis CKD, rectus femoris CSA evaluation with US has been shown to be a viable and reliable procedure. In another study on 34 critically ill patients with KDIGO stage 3 acute kidney injury (AKI), muscle US of the rectus femoris and vastus intermedius was proven to be a simple, accurate, and non-invasive method for assessing quantitative changes in quadriceps femoris muscle [17]. Another study on patients with AKI by Sabatino et al. [51] revealed that quadriceps muscle thickness evaluated by US is consistent with CT measures.

Regarding HD patients, there is one study that tested the applicability of quadriceps muscle CSA assessed by US in evaluating muscle mass and diagnosing sarcopenia. Matsuzawa et al. [18] studied 58 HD patients and concluded that US of the rectus femoris CSA identified patients with high risk of sarcopenia and could be a valid diagnostic technique in these patients. In the current study, quadriceps muscle CSA is a significant predictor of sarcopenia in HD patients and could be a valid diagnostic tool for sarcopenia in these patients. In addition, the cut-off for quadriceps muscle CSA discriminating those with sarcopenia based on the Youden index was 2.96 cm2 for males and 2.92 cm2 for females, respectively. These cut-offs were higher than reported by Matsuzawa et al. [18], who found cut points for the diagnosis of muscle wasting to be 1.88 and 1.43 cm2 in male and female HD patients, respectively.

The limitations of the current study include relatively small sample size with different proportions of males and females and the nature of single center study. Additionally, patients with uncomplicated DM were included in the study, that was because there were a good percentage of HD patients with DM. Thus, not all patients with DM could not be excluded. In addition, the cross-sectional design of the study is one of the limitations. Larger studies are needed to set up a cut-off value for quadriceps muscle CSA for diagnosis of sarcopenia in HD patients. Furthermore, studies with longitudinal design are required to identify the fluctuations of muscle mass and to investigate the potential factors that might afflict the muscle mass of HD patients.

Conclusion

Sarcopenia is prevalent among Egyptian HD patients. US on quadriceps muscle CSA could be used for diagnosis of sarcopenia in these patients. The cut offs for diagnosis of sarcopenia in these patients were 2.96 and 2.92 cm2 in males and females, respectively.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to local university policy but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Sabatino A, Regolisti G, Karupaiah T, et al. Protein-energy wasting and nutritional supplementation in patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis. Clin Nutr. 2017;36:663–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenberg IH. Sarcopenia: origins and clinical relevance. J Nutr. 1997;127:990S–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older people. Age Ageing. 2010;39:412–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Muscaritoli M, Anker SD, Argilés J, et al. Consensus definition of Sarcopenia, cachexia and pre-cachexia: joint document elaborated by Special Interest groups (SIG) cachexia-anorexia in chronic wasting diseases and nutrition in geriatrics. Clin Nutr. 2010;29:154–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fielding RA, Vellas B, Evans WJ, et al. Sarcopenia: an undiagnosed condition in older adults. Current consensus definition: prevalence, etiology, and consequences. International working group on Sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2011;12:249–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Studenski SA, Peters KW, Alley DE, et al. The FNIH sarcopenia project: rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2014;69:547–558.

  7. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48:16–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sabatino A, Regolisti G, Delsante M, et al. Noninvasive evaluation of muscle mass by ultrasonography of quadriceps femoris muscle in end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis. Clin Nutr. 2019;38:1232–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Foley RN, Wang C, Ishani A, Collins AJ, Murray AM. Kidney function and sarcopenia in the United States general population: NHANES III. Am J Nephrol. 2007;27:279–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Giglio J, Kamimura MA, Lamarca F, Rodrigues J, Santin F, Avesani CM. Association of Sarcopenia with nutritional parameters, quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality rates of elderly patients on hemodialysis. J Ren Nutr. 2018;28:197–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ikizler TA, Cano NJ, Franch H, et al. Prevention and treatment of protein energy wasting in chronic kidney disease patients: a consensus statement by the International Society of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism. Kidney Int. 2013;84:1096–107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Carrero JJ, Johansen KL, Lindholm B, Stenvinkel P, Cuppari L, Avesani CM. Screening for muscle wasting and dysfunction in patients with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2016;90:53–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Davies SJ, Davenport A. The role of bioimpedance and biomarkers in helping to aid clinical decision-making of volume assessments in dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2014;86:489–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Leal VO, Mafra D, Fouque D, Anjos LA. Use of handgrip strength in the assessment of the muscle function of chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis: a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26:1354–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Souza VA, Oliveira D, Cupolilo EN, et al. Rectus femoris muscle mass evaluation by ultrasound: facilitating Sarcopenia diagnosis in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease stages. Clin (Sao Paulo). 2018;73:e392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sahathevan S, Khor BH, Yeong CH, et al. Validity of Ultrasound Imaging in Measuring quadriceps muscle thickness and cross-sectional area in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2021;45:422–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sabatino A, Regolisti G, Bozzoli L, et al. Reliability of bedside ultrasound for measurement of quadriceps muscle thickness in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Clin Nutr. 2017;36:1710–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Matsuzawa R, Yamamoto S, Suzuki Y, et al. The clinical applicability of ultrasound technique for diagnosis of Sarcopenia in hemodialysis patients. Clin Nutr. 2021;40:1161–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Battaglia Y, Ullo I, Massarenti S, et al. Ultrasonography of quadriceps femoris muscle and Subcutaneous Fat tissue and body composition by BIVA in Chronic Dialysis patients. Nutrients. 2020;12.

  20. Daugirdas JT. Rapid methods of estimating Kt/V: three formulas compared. ASAIO Trans. 1990;36:M362–364.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen LK, Woo J, Assantachai P, et al. Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia: 2019 Consensus Update on Sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21:300–307e302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Maynard-Paquette A-C, Poirier C, Chartrand-Lefebvre C, Dubé B-P. Ultrasound evaluation of the quadriceps muscle contractile index in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: relationships with clinical symptoms, disease severity and diaphragm contractility. Int J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2020.79–88.

  23. Deng M, Yan L, Tong R, et al. Ultrasound assessment of the rectus femoris in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease predicts Sarcopenia. Int J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2022.2801–10.

  24. Chang K-V, Wu W-T, Huang K-C, Jan WH, Han D-S. Limb muscle quality and quantity in elderly adults with dynapenia but not Sarcopenia: an ultrasound imaging study. Exp Gerontol. 2018;108:54–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kittiskulnam P, Chertow GM, Carrero JJ, Delgado C, Kaysen GA, Johansen KL. Sarcopenia and its individual criteria are associated, in part, with mortality among patients on hemodialysis. Kidney Int. 2017;92:238–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Avin KG, Chen NX, Organ JM, et al. Skeletal muscle regeneration and oxidative stress are altered in chronic kidney disease. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0159411.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Beaudart C, McCloskey E, Bruyère O, et al. Sarcopenia in daily practice: assessment and management. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sánchez-Tocino ML, Miranda-Serrano B, López-González A, et al. Sarcopenia and mortality in older hemodialysis patients. Nutrients. 2022;14:2354.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Abdala R, Del Valle EE, Negri AL, et al. Sarcopenia in hemodialysis patients from Buenos Aires, Argentina. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2021;7:75–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Fu C, Yan D, Wang L, et al. High prevalence of Sarcopenia and myosteatosis in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1117438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Anderson BM, Wilson DV, Qasim M, et al. Ultrasound quadriceps muscle thickness is variably associated with frailty in haemodialysis recipients. BMC Nephrol. 2023;24:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shu X, Lin T, Wang H, et al. Diagnosis, prevalence, and mortality of Sarcopenia in dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2022;13:145–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Purnamasari D, Tetrasiwi EN, Kartiko GJ, Astrella C, Husam K, Laksmi PW. Sarcopenia and Chronic complications of type 2 diabetes Mellitus. Rev Diabet Stud. 2022;18:157–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kaysen GA, Zhu F, Sarkar S, et al. Estimation of total-body and limb muscle mass in hemodialysis patients by using multifrequency bioimpedance spectroscopy. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005;82:988–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Carbayo J, Abad S, Verde E, et al. Body composition and ventricular function in hemodialysis patients. Seminars in Dialysis. Wiley Online Library; 2021. pp. 285–91.

  36. Tian M, Qian Z, Long Y, Yu F, Yuan J, Zha Y. Decreased intracellular to total body water ratio and depressive symptoms in patients with maintenance hemodialysis. Psychol Res Behav Manage. 2023.4367–76.

  37. Lang F, Busch GL, Ritter M, et al. Functional significance of cell volume regulatory mechanisms. Physiol Rev. 1998;78:247–306.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Häussinger D, Gerok W, Roth E, Lang F. Cellular hydration state: an important determinant of protein catabolism in health and disease. The Lancet. 1993;341:1330–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Noori N, Kopple JD, Kovesdy CP, et al. Mid-arm muscle circumference and quality of life and survival in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5:2258–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Utkualp N, Ercan I. Anthropometric measurements usage in Medical sciences. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:404261.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Sabatino A, D’Alessandro C, Regolisti G, et al. Muscle mass assessment in renal disease: the role of imaging techniques. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2020;10:1672–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Naranjo-Hernández D, Reina-Tosina J, Min M. Fundamentals, recent advances, and future challenges in bioimpedance devices for healthcare applications. J Sens. 2019;2019.

  43. Mulasi U, Kuchnia AJ, Cole AJ, Earthman CP. Bioimpedance at the bedside: current applications, limitations, and opportunities. Nutr Clin Pract. 2015;30:180–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Bauer J, Morley JE, Schols AM, et al. Sarcopenia: a time for action. An SCWD position paper. J cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019;10:956–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Fukasawa H, Kaneko M, Niwa H, et al. Lower thigh muscle mass is associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in elderly hemodialysis patients. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2017;71:64–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ohkawa S, Odamaki M, Yoneyama T, Hibi I, Miyaji K, Kumagai H. Standardized thigh muscle area measured by computed axial tomography as an alternate muscle mass index for nutritional assessment of hemodialysis patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71:485–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Morrell GR, Ikizler TA, Chen X, et al. Psoas muscle cross-sectional area as a measure of whole-body lean muscle mass in maintenance hemodialysis patients. J Ren Nutr. 2016;26:258–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Connolly B, MacBean V, Crowley C, et al. Ultrasound for the assessment of peripheral skeletal muscle architecture in critical illness: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:897–905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ticinesi A, Meschi T, Narici MV, Lauretani F, Maggio M. Muscle ultrasound and sarcopenia in older individuals: a clinical perspective. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18:290–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Souza VAd, Oliveira D, Cupolilo EN, et al. Rectus femoris muscle mass evaluation by ultrasound: facilitating Sarcopenia diagnosis in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease stages. Clinics. 2018;73.

  51. Sabatino A, Regolisti G, Di Mario F, et al. Validation by CT scan of quadriceps muscle thickness measurement by ultrasound in acute kidney injury. J Nephrol. 2020;33:109–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

NO acknowledgements to be mentioned.

Funding

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). The authors declare that no funding from any source was received for this study.

Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mansoura Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Eman Nagy & Emad Samaan

  2. Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Mohamed El-Gamal & Muhammed Shamsuddin

  3. Medical Experimental Research Center (MERC), Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Mohamed El-Gamal

  4. Department of Biological sciences, Faculty of Science, New Mansoura University, New Mansoura, Egypt

    Mohamed El-Gamal

  5. Rheumatology and Immunology Unit, Internal Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Samar Tharwat

  6. Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Horus University, New Damietta, Egypt

    Samar Tharwat

Authors
  1. Eman Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emad Samaan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohamed El-Gamal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muhammed Shamsuddin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Samar Tharwat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.N wrote the main monuscript, E.S, M.E and M.S did the practical part (InBody), and S.T did US and revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eman Nagy.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Mansoura University (Approval number: R.22.07.1768.R1). All patients included in the study, or their caring relatives were well informed about the study and a written informed consent was obtained. This work has been carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for studies involving humans.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nagy, E., Samaan, E., El-Gamal, M. et al. Concordance between muscle mass assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by muscle ultrasound: a cross-sectional study in a cohort of patients on chronic hemodialysis. BMC Nephrol 25, 49 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-024-03487-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-024-03487-0

Keywords

BMC Nephrology

ISSN: 1471-2369

Contact us