Monitoring of muscle mass in critically ill patients: comparison of ultrasound and two bioelectrical impedance analysis devices

Skeletal muscle atrophy commonly occurs in critically ill patients, and decreased muscle mass is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Muscle mass can be assessed using various tools, including ultrasound and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). However, the effectiveness of muscle mass monito...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of intensive care 2019-12, Vol.7 (1), p.61-61, Article 61
Hauptverfasser: Nakanishi, Nobuto, Tsutsumi, Rie, Okayama, Yoshihiro, Takashima, Takuya, Ueno, Yoshitoyo, Itagaki, Taiga, Tsutsumi, Yasuo, Sakaue, Hiroshi, Oto, Jun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Skeletal muscle atrophy commonly occurs in critically ill patients, and decreased muscle mass is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Muscle mass can be assessed using various tools, including ultrasound and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). However, the effectiveness of muscle mass monitoring is unclear in critically ill patients. This study was conducted to compare ultrasound and BIA for the monitoring of muscle mass in critically ill patients. We recruited adult patients who were expected to undergo mechanical ventilation for > 48 h and to remain in the intensive care unit (ICU) for > 5 days. On days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10, muscle mass was evaluated using an ultrasound and two BIA devices (Bioscan: Malton International, England; Physion: Nippon Shooter, Japan). The influence of fluid balance was also evaluated between each measurement day. We analyzed 93 images in 21 patients. The age of the patients was 69 (interquartile range, IQR, 59-74) years, with 16 men and 5 women. The length of ICU stay was 11 days (IQR, 9-25 days). The muscle mass, monitored by ultrasound, decreased progressively by 9.2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 5.9-12.5%), 12.7% (95% CI, 9.3-16.1%), 18.2% (95% CI, 14.7-21.6%), and 21.8% (95% CI, 17.9-25.7%) on days 3, 5, 7, and 10 (  
ISSN:2052-0492
2052-0492
DOI:10.1186/s40560-019-0416-y