The implication of calf circumference and grip strength in osteoporosis and bone mineral density among hemodialysis patients

Background Chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder (CKD–MBD), nutritional status, and uremia management have been emphasized for bone management in hemodialysis patients. Nevertheless, valuable data on the importance of muscle mass in bone management are limited, including whether conventio...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical and experimental nephrology 2023-04, Vol.27 (4), p.365-373
Hauptverfasser: Ozawa, Moe, Hirawa, Nobuhito, Haze, Tatsuya, Haruna, Aiko, Kawano, Rina, Komiya, Shiro, Ohki, Yuki, Suzuki, Shota, Kobayashi, Yusuke, Fujiwara, Akira, Saka, Sanae, Hanaoka, Masaaki, Mitsuhashi, Hiroshi, Yamaguchi, Satoshi, Ohnishi, Toshimasa, Tamura, Kouichi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder (CKD–MBD), nutritional status, and uremia management have been emphasized for bone management in hemodialysis patients. Nevertheless, valuable data on the importance of muscle mass in bone management are limited, including whether conventional management alone can prevent osteoporosis. Thus, the importance of muscle mass and strength, independent of the conventional management in osteoporosis prevention among hemodialysis patients, was evaluated. Methods Patients with a history of hemodialysis 6 months or longer were selected. We assessed the risk for osteoporosis associated with calf circumference or grip strength using multivariable adjustment for indices of CKD–MBD, nutrition, and dialysis adequacy. Moreover, the associations between bone mineral density (BMD), calf circumference, grip strength, and bone metabolic markers were also evaluated. Results A total of 136 patients were included. The odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for osteoporosis at the femoral neck were 1.25 (1.04–1.54, P  
ISSN:1342-1751
1437-7799
DOI:10.1007/s10157-022-02308-8