English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Assessment of muscle mass (MM) or its proxies, lean tissue mass (LTM) or fat-free mass (FFM), is an integral part of the diagnosis of protein-energy wasting (PEW) and sarcopenia in patients on hemodialysis (HD). Both sarcopenia and PEW are related to a loss of functionality and also increased morbidity and mortality in this patient population. However, loss of MM is a part of a wider spectrum, including inflammation and fluid overload. As both sarcopenia and PEW are amendable to treatment, estimation of MM regularly is therefore of major clinical relevance. Whereas, computer-assisted tomography (CT) or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is considered a reference method, it is unsuitable as a method for routine clinical monitoring. In this review, different bedside methods to estimate MM or its proxies in patients on HD will be discussed, with emphasis on biochemical methods, simplified creatinine index (SCI), bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), and muscle ultrasound (US). Body composition parameters of all methods are related to the outcome and appear relevant in clinical practice. The US is the only parameter by which muscle dimensions are measured. BIS and SCI are also dependent on either theoretical assumptions or the use of population-specific regression equations. Potential caveats of the methods are that SCI can be influenced by residual renal function, BIS can be influenced by fluid overload, although the latter may be circumvented by the use of a three-compartment model, and that muscle US reflects regional and not whole body MM. In conclusion, both SCI and BIS as well as muscle US are all valuable methods that can be applied for bedside nutritional assessment in patients on HD and appear suitable for routine follow-up. The choice for either method depends on local preferences. However, estimation of MM or its proxies should always be part of a multidimensional assessment of the patient followed by a personalized treatment strategy.

Estimation of Muscle Mass in the Integrated Assessment of Patients on Hemodialysis