Reliability and accuracy of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis for assessing muscle and fat mass in older Europeans: a comparison with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Department of Human Biology, Zoological Institute, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Am Botanischen Garten 9, 24118, Kiel, Germany.
Arbeitsphysiologie (Impact Factor: 2.3). 08/2011; 111(8):1879-87. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-010-1795-x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Segmental determination of muscle and fat mass (MM, FM) attains growing importance for judging effects of training and malnutrition in older people. This study evaluated the reliability and accuracy of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis (sBIA) for use in older people. In 72 (40 men, 32 women) healthy elderly (mean age 69.0 ± 4.8 years), the MM and FM of right and left arm (RA, LA), right and left leg (RL, LL), and trunk were determined by sBIA (BC-418-MA, Tanita) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method. The sBIA provided in both sexes reliable values for limb and truncal MM and FM, except for MM of RL in women. The accuracy of sBIA displayed sex-specific bias. For MM, accurate values were noted for men's trunk and women's limbs (except LA). By contrast, MM was significantly underestimated in men's limbs by 6-18% and overestimated in women's LA (13%) and trunk (14%). Estimates of FM were accurate for men's arms as well as women's legs and trunk. However, FM was significantly overestimated in men's legs (34-37%) and trunk (60%), but underestimated in women's arms (27-35%). The proportional deviations of sBIA estimates from DXA values for limbs and trunk were significantly related to the respective MM or FM. The sBIA tends to underestimate MM in men and to overestimate in women. The reverse occurs for FM. The actual equations of the Tanita device may not completely represent the European older population and should be partly revised.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Standing eight-electrode bioelectrical impedance analysis, which can be used to estimate percentage body fat (BF%) and lean soft tissue (LST) in the whole body and different body segments of elderly adults, is potentially an ideal method for clinical assessment of body composition. Method In this study, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used as a criterion method to validate a standing eight-electrode bioelectrical impedance analysis device BC-418 (hereafter abbreviated as BIA8; Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan). LST and BF% were measured in the whole body and various body segments (upper limbs, lower limbs, and trunk) of each participant using BIA8 and DXA; correlation and differences between the LST and BF% results measured in the whole body and various body segments were compared. A total of 77 individuals, 42 males and 35 females, aged 55.2–76.8 years, were included in the analysis. Results The impedance indexes (h2/Z) of hand to foot, and upper and lower limbs of the left side of the body measured by BIA8 were highly correlated with the LST values in the corresponding body segment measured by DXA (r = 0.96, r = 0.92, and r = 0.88, respectively; all p < 0.001). LST values of the whole body and various body segments of participants measured using BIA8 were highly and significantly correlated with the corresponding DXA data (all r > 0.88, p < 0.005); the whole body and segmental BF% measured by BIA8 and DXA also showed a significant correlation (r > 0.84, p < 0.005). In addition, the agreement between the results of BIA8 and DXA was assessed by Bland–Altman analysis; the bias and SD were, respectively, 1.89 kg and −4.25% in limb LST, and 2.18 kg and 4.06% in whole body BF%. Conclusion The results of this study showed that the impedance index and LST in the whole body, upper limbs, and lower limbs derived from DXA findings were highly correlated. The LST and BF% estimated by BIA8 in whole body and various body segments were highly correlated with the corresponding DXA results; however, BC-418 overestimates the participants' appendicular LST and underestimates whole body BF%. Therefore, caution is needed when interpreting the results of appendicular LST and whole body BF% estimated for elderly adults.
    International Journal of Gerontology 09/2014; 8(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ijge.2013.08.010 · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bioelectrical impedance is a non-invasive technique for the assessment of body composition; however, information on its accuracy in the very old (80+ years) is limited. We investigated whether the association between the impedance index and total body water (TBW) was modified by hydration status as assessed by haematocrit and serum osmolarity. This was a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the Newcastle 85+ Cohort Study. Anthropometric measurements [weight, height (Ht)] were taken and body mass index (BMI) calculated. Leg-to-leg bioimpedance was used to measure the impedance value (Z) and to estimate fat mass, fat free mass and TBW. The impedance index (Ht2/Z) was calculated. Blood haematocrit, haemoglobin, glucose, sodium, potassium, urea and creatinine concentrations were measured. Serum osmolarity was calculated using a validated prediction equation. 677 men and women aged 85 years were included. The average BMI of the population was 24.3 ± 4.2 kg/m2 and the prevalence of overweight and obesity was 32.6% and 9.5%, respectively. The impedance index was significantly associated with TBW in both men (n = 274, r = 0.76, p < 0.001) and women (n = 403, r = 0.96, p < 0.001); in regression models, the impedance index remained associated with TBW after adjustment for height, weight and gender, and further adjustment for serum osmolarity and haematocrit. The impedance index values increased with BMI and the relationship was not modified by hydration status in women (p = 0.69) and only marginally in men (p = 0.02). The association between the impedance index and TBW was not modified by hydration status, which may support the utilisation of leg-to-leg bioimpedance for the assessment of body composition in the very old.
    Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 09/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.archger.2014.09.004 · 1.53 Impact Factor