No abstract

Background: Due to the poor outcomes associated with the impairment of physical function and muscle strength in patients on maintenance dialysis, it is important to understand the factors that may influence physical function and muscle strength. The aim of this study was to explore the factors associated with physical function in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. Methods: Patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis for at least 3 months, aged 18 years old or above, were enrolled. Physical function was assessed by handgrip strength, gait and sit-to-stand tests, and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Clinical and laboratory data were collected to verify the association with physical function parameters through binary logistic regression. Results: One-hundred ninety patients on maintenance dialysis were included; 140 patients (73.7%) on hemodialysis and 50 (26.3%) on peritoneal dialysis. The mean age was 57.3 ± 14.9 years, 109 (57.4%) were male, and 87 (45.8%) were older than 60 years. The median SPPB was 8.0 points (6.0-10.0 points) and the mean ± standard deviation of handgrip strength was 24.7 ± 12.2 kg. Binary logistic regression showed that age, type of renal replacement therapy, diabetes mellitus, and serum creatinine were significantly associated with both higher 4-meter gait test times and lower SPPB scores. Only age and diabetes mellitus were associated with higher sit-to-stand test times, while age and ferritin were associated with lower handgrip strength. Conclusion: Age, diabetes mellitus, serum creatinine, and hemodialysis modality are factors related to physical function in dialysis patients.

Background: Protein-energy wasting is related to impairment of quality of life and lower survival of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. The evaluation of body composition, especially fat free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM), is important for the prediction of outcomes in these individuals. The aim of this study was to compare the FFM and FM measurements obtained by single-frequency bioimpedance (SF-BIA) and by a multiple frequency bioimpedance (MF-BIA) device, using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving adult patients undergoing regular PD, in which we performed SF-BIA, MF-BIA, and DXA at the same visit. To compare the bioimpedance values with DXA, we used: Person correlation (r), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Bland-Altman concordance analysis.Results: The sample consisted of 50 patients in the PD, with mean age of 55.1 ± 16.3 years. Both bioimpedance methods showed a strong correlation (r > 0.7) and excellent reproducibility (ICC > 0.75) compared to DXA. According to the Bland-Altman diagram, SF-BIA showed agreement in body compartment measurements, with no proportionality bias (p > 0.05), without systematic bias for FFM (−0.5 ± 4.9, 95% CI −1.8 to 0.9, p = 0.506), and for FM (0.3 ± 4.6, p = 0.543). MF-BIA did not present a proportionality bias for the FFM, but it underestimated this body compartment by 2.5 ± 5.4 kg (p = 0.002). In addition, MF-BIA presented proportionality bias for FM.Conclusion: SF-BIA was a more accurate assessing method than MBIA for FFM and FM measurements in PD patients. Because it is a low-cost, non-evaluator-dependent measurement and has less systematic bias, it can also be recommended for fat mass and free-fat mass evaluation in PD patients.

No abstract

Since publication of the original article the authors noticed two author names were displayed incorrectly. Maryanne Zilli Canedo da Silva should be Maryanne Zilli Canedo Silva, and Nayrana Soares do Carmo Reis should be Nayrana Soares Carmo Reis. Furthermore, since publication of the original article an erratum regarding the European consensus on sarcopenia was published [1]. This affected the original article's results in several ways. The results affected are listed below. Abstract "The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 4 to 10% according to cut points and references used" should read "The prevalence of sarcopenia remained 4% according to cut points and references used." Materials and methods Diagnosis of sarcopenia "Values below 7 kg/m² for men and 6 kg/m² for women were considered as decreased muscle mass and confirmation of the presence of sarcopenia [3]" should read "Values below 7 kg/m² for men and 5.5 kg/m² for women were considered as decreased muscle mass and confirmation of the presence of sarcopenia [3]." Results Table 1 was not affected by the change in results and is reproduced here: "Prevalence of sarcopenia according to the 2019 EWGSOP criteria was 10% (n = 5). Reduced muscle mass alone was prevalent in 20% (n = 10) and reduced muscle function assessed by HGS was frequent in 28% (n = 14)" should read "Prevalence of sarcopenia according to the 2019 EWGSOP criteria was 4% (n = 2). Reduced muscle mass alone was prevalent in 10% (n = 5) and reduced muscle function assessed by HGS was frequent in 28% (n = 14)." Figure 1 was affected by the change in results. Both the original Fig. 1 and updated Fig. 1 are produced below: Fig. 1 Prevalence of isolated reduced muscle mass and muscle function, and sarcopenia in PD patients (original).% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 R Redu uced d mu uscle E e ma EWG ass GSOP P, 20 Red 010 duce fun ed m ncƟo EW musc on WGSO cle OP, 2019 9 Sa arcop peni ia Fig. 1 Prevalence of isolated reduced muscle mass and muscle function, and sarcopenia in PD patients (updated) DiscussionThe original article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41430-019-0468-z. 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: