Cargando…

Relationship between Mid-Upper Arm Circumference and Body Mass Index in Inpatients

INTRODUCTION: Nutritional screening is a fundamental aspect of the initial evaluation of the hospitalised patient. Body Mass Index (BMI) in association with other parameters is a good marker of malnutrition (<18.5 kg/m(2)), but it presents the handicap that the great majority of patients cannot b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Benítez Brito, Néstor, Suárez Llanos, José Pablo, Fuentes Ferrer, Manuel, Oliva García, Jose Gregorio, Delgado Brito, Irina, Pereyra-García Castro, Francisca, Caracena Castellanos, Nieves, Acevedo Rodríguez, Candelaria Xiomara, Palacio Abizanda, Enrique
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27494612
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160480
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Nutritional screening is a fundamental aspect of the initial evaluation of the hospitalised patient. Body Mass Index (BMI) in association with other parameters is a good marker of malnutrition (<18.5 kg/m(2)), but it presents the handicap that the great majority of patients cannot be weighed and measured. For this reason it is necessary to find other indicators that can be measured in these patients. OBJECTIVES: 1) Analyse the relationship between BMI and Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC); 2) establish a cut-off point of MUAC equivalent to BMI <18.5 kg/m(2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The anthropometric data of patients hospitalised over the period 2004–2013 were retrospectively revised. The following variables were collected: weight, height, BMI, MUAC, sex and age. RESULTS: 1373 patients were evaluated, who presented a mean weight of: 65.04±15.51 kg; height: 1.66±0.09 m; BMI: 23.48±5.03 kg/m(2); MUAC: 26.95±4.50 cm; age: 56.24±16.77. MUAC correlates suitably to BMI by means of the following equation (simple linear regression): BMI = − 0.042 + 0.873 x MUAC (cm) (R(2) = 0.609), with a Pearson r value of 0.78 (p<0.001). The area under the curve of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.94; p<0.001). The MUAC value ≤22.5 cm presented a sensitivity of 67.7%, specificity of 94.5%, and a correct classification of 90%. No significant statistical differences were found in the cut-off point of MUAC for the diagnosis of malnutrition based on sex (p = 0.115) and age (p = 0.694). CONCLUSIONS: 1) MUAC correlates positively and significantly with BMI. 2) MUAC ≤ 22.5 cm correlates properly with a BMI of <18.5 kg/m(2), independent of the age or sex of the patient, although there are other alternatives. MUAC constitutes a useful tool as a marker of malnutrition, fundamentally in patients for whom weight and height cannot be determined.