Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
J Hum Nutr Diet. 2019 Jun;32(3):288-294. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12613. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
People diagnosed with intestinal failure (IF) as a result of short bowel syndrome are dependent on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Measuring nutritional status is essential for monitoring treatment. The present study aimed to determine the agreement and feasibility of three methods bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), ultrasound and air displacement plethysmography (ADP) for measuring body composition in people receiving HPN.
Body composition data were collected from patients attending an IF clinic.
There were 50 participants recruited and data were collected for BIA (n = 46), ultrasound (n = 49) and ADP (n = 9). Numbers for ADP were much lower because of a lack of participant uptake. Fat-free mass (FFM) measured by BIA and ultrasound in comparison to ADP was found to have good intraclass correlation (ICC) 0.791 (95% confidence interval (CI) CI -0.21 to 0.96) and a moderate ICC 0.659 [95% (CI) -0.27 to 0.92], respectively. Fat mass (FM) measured by both BIA and ultrasound in comparison to ADP was found to have moderate ICC 0.660 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.92) and poor ICC -0.005 (95% CI -0.73 to 0.65), respectively.
Compared to ADP, BIA indicated moderate to good agreement for measuring body composition, whereas ultrasound indicated far less agreement, particularly when measuring FM. The lack of uptake of ADP suggests that participants found the Bodpod (COSMED Srl, Shepperton, UK) unfavourable. Considering that ultrasound has limited agreement and ADP was not the preferred option for participants, BIA shows some potential. However, the difference between ADP and BIA was larger for FM compared to FFM, which needs to be considered in the clinical setting.
由于短肠综合征而被诊断为肠衰竭(IF)的人依赖于家庭肠外营养(HPN)。测量营养状况对于监测治疗至关重要。本研究旨在确定三种方法(生物电阻抗分析(BIA)、超声和空气置换体描记法(ADP))在接受 HPN 的人群中测量身体成分的一致性和可行性。
从参加 IF 诊所的患者中收集身体成分数据。
共招募了 50 名参与者,收集了 BIA(n=46)、超声(n=49)和 ADP(n=9)的数据。由于参与者接受度低,ADP 的数据要少得多。与 ADP 相比,BIA 和超声测量的去脂体重(FFM)具有良好的组内相关系数(ICC)0.791(95%置信区间(CI)-0.21 至 0.96)和中度 ICC 0.659[95%(CI)-0.27 至 0.92]。与 ADP 相比,BIA 和超声测量的脂肪量(FM)的 ICC 分别为中度 0.660(95% CI-0.28 至 0.92)和较差的-0.005(95% CI-0.73 至 0.65)。
与 ADP 相比,BIA 表示测量身体成分的一致性为中度到良好,而超声表示的一致性要差得多,特别是在测量 FM 时。ADP 的低接受度表明参与者认为 Bodpod(COSMED Srl,英国谢泼顿)不理想。考虑到超声的一致性有限,且 ADP 不是参与者的首选方法,BIA 具有一定的潜力。然而,与 FFM 相比,FM 时 ADP 和 BIA 之间的差异更大,这在临床环境中需要考虑。