Results: According to the SGA, one-third were considered at nutritional risk (SGA-B). Nutritional risk was found in 59.4%, 65.2% and 88% based on HGS, mid-arm muscle circumference (MAMC) and APMT, respectively. The dominant APMT obtained a mean of 17.2 ± 5.4 mm vs 16.2 ± 4.6 mm of the non-dominant hand. On the other hand, the dominant HGS had a mean of 27.3 ± 11.2 vs 24.2 ± 11.0 of the nondominant HGS. APMT and HGS values for any limb were significantly higher in males, but below thresholds patterns described for any gender. The HGS of both hands were correlated with sex, age, weight, height, MAMC, tricipital skinfold and APMT (p < 0.05). In multivariate linear regression, the model that best fit an exploratory analysis included: age, sex, height, MAMC, tricipital skinfold, and dominant APMT. Conclusion: There was a higher nutritional risk in patients with stable CVH when variables dependent of muscle mass were analyzed. APMT was an independent parameter to predict HGS value. We encourage malnutrition screening based on anthropometry, HGS and APMT, since SGA is not such a reliable tool for CVH.

No abstract