Why the study?
Cachexia is common in chronic heart failure and linked to poor prognosis, but how best to measure body composition remains unclear.
Does multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) provide equivalent body composition measurements compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in patients with chronic heart failure?
Observational (n=120)
No
Does multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) provide equivalent body composition measurements compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in patients with chronic heart failure?
Mean Difference: -5.1 (95% CI -11.7–1.5)
Absolute Event Rate: 27.2% vs 32.3%
BIA and DEXA yield significantly different measurements for fat, lean, and bone mass in patients with heart failure and should not be used interchangeably.
Clinicians should avoid interchanging BIA and DEXA for body composition in heart failure; Level 4 data leaves open outcome-linked validation.
BACKGROUND: Cachexia is common in patients with chronic heart failure and is associated with poor prognosis. How best to measure body composition is not clear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We characterized body composition in 120 patients with chronic heart failure: mean (SD) age 70 (10) years, left ventricular ejection fraction 44 (10) %, and median (Q1-Q3) N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide 845 (355-1368) ng/L. We measured body composition using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) device (Tanita BIA MC-180MA). Mean (SD) fat mass (FM) was 27.2 (11.7) kg by BIA and 32.3 (12.2) kg by DEXA (mean difference -5.1 kg, 95% limits of agreement: -11.7, 1.5; 4% of values outside limit of agreement); mean (SD) lean mass (LM) was 56.6 (10.9) kg by BIA and 51.1 (9.9) kg by DEXA (mean difference 5.5 kg, 95% limits of agreement: -1.3, 12.3; 6% of values outside limit of agreement); and mean (SD) bone mass (BM) was 3.0 (0.5) kg by BIA and 2.8 (0.6) kg by DEXA (mean difference 0.2 kg, 95% limits of agreement: -0.5, 0.8; 5% of values outside limit of agreement). There was a close correlation between DEXA and BIA for both LM and FM (LM: r = 0.95, P < 0.001; FM: r = 0.96, P < 0.001) but less so for BM (r = 0.84, P < 0.001). Both DEXA and BIA body composition measurements correlated well with other measures of body size (body mass index, hip circumference, and waist circumference). CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the measurements of FM, LM, and BM between the two techniques, which should not be used interchangeably.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shah et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Chronic heart failure (n=120). Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) vs. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) was evaluated on Fat mass (FM) (MD -5.1 kg, 95% CI -11.7, 1.5).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: