» Articles » PMID: 35565818

Phase Angle and Handgrip Strength As a Predictor of Disease-Related Malnutrition in Admitted Patients: 12-Month Mortality

Abstract

Background: Phase Angle (PhA) value measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) could be considered a good marker of the patient’s cell mass and cellular damage. Various studies have shown that the value of PhA is associated with an increased nutritional risk in several pathologies. However, not many studies have focused on the use of PhA as a screening tool in admitted patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic value of PhA to determine disease-related malnutrition (DRM) and the risk that this entails for mortality and length of stay (LOS). Methods: 570 patients admitted to the hospital for different causes were included in this retrospective observational study. Patients’ nutritional risk was assessed by screening tests such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening tool (MUST) and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA), in addition to non-invasive functional techniques, such as BIA and handgrip strength (HGS), 24−48 h after admission. After performing an SGA as the gold standard to assess malnutrition, PhA and SPhA values were used to determine DRM. Furthermore, both samples: malnutrition status (MS) and non-malnutrition status (NMS) were compared, with SphA-Malnutrition corresponding to a diagnosis of malnutrition. Statistical analysis of the sample was conducted with JAMOVI version 2.2.2. Results: Patients with MS had lower PhA and SPhA than patients with NMS (p < 0.001). The ROC curve analysis (AUC = 0.81) showed a cut-off point for MS for PhA = 5.4° (sensitivity 77.51% and specificity 74.07%) and AUC = 0.776 with a cut-off point for SPhA = −0.3 (sensitivity 81.74% and specificity 63.53%). Handgrip strength (HGS) was also observed to be a good predictor in hospitalized patients. Carrying out a comparative analysis between MS and NMS, length of stay (LOS) was 9.0 days in MS vs. 5.0 days in NMS patients (OR 1.07 (1.04−1.09, p < 0.001)). A low SPhA-malnutrition value (SPhA < −0.3) was significantly associated with a higher mortality hazards ratio (HR 7.87, 95% CI 2.56−24.24, p < 0.001). Conclusion: PhA, SPhA and HGS are shown to be good prognostic markers of DRM, LOS and mortality and could therefore be useful screening tools to complement the nutritional assessment of admitted patients.

Citing Articles

Role of Bioimpedance Phase Angle and Hand Grip Strength in Predicting 12-Month Mortality in Patients Admitted with Haematologic Cancer.

Dalla Rovere L, Fernandez-Jimenez R, Guerrini A, Garcia-Olivares M, Herola-Cobos C, Hardy-Anon C Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(5).

PMID: 40075733 PMC: 11898618. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17050886.


Association between phase angle and all-cause mortality in adults aged 18-49 years: NHANES 1999-2004.

Xia X, Li C, Xue X, Chen Y, He F, Guo H Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):2785.

PMID: 39843978 PMC: 11754445. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-86825-y.


Rectus femoris cross sectional area and timed up and go test potential useful of as a predictor of sarcopenia and mortality in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Fernandez-Jimenez R, Cabrera-Cesar E, Sanmartin-Sanchez A, Sanchez-Garcia A, Espildora-Hernandez F, Vegas-Aguilar I Front Nutr. 2024; 11:1440402.

PMID: 39698245 PMC: 11652176. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1440402.


Comparison of CIPA Nutritional Screening with GLIM Criteria for Malnutrition, Prognostic Evolution, and Association with Phase Angle in Hospitalized Patients.

Marquez Mesa E, Guerra Cabrera A, Gomez de Segura I, Suarez Llanos J Nutrients. 2024; 16(21).

PMID: 39519485 PMC: 11547199. DOI: 10.3390/nu16213652.


Phase Angle as a Predictor of Mortality in Older Patients with Hip Fracture.

Sanchez-Torralvo F, Perez-Del-Rio V, Navas Vela L, Garcia-Olivares M, Porras N, Fernandez J Nutrients. 2024; 16(14).

PMID: 39064663 PMC: 11279825. DOI: 10.3390/nu16142221.


References
1.
Lukaski H, Kyle U, Kondrup J . Assessment of adult malnutrition and prognosis with bioelectrical impedance analysis: phase angle and impedance ratio. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2017; 20(5):330-339. DOI: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000387. View

2.
De Palo T, Messina G, Edefonti A, Perfumo F, Pisanello L, Peruzzi L . Normal values of the bioelectrical impedance vector in childhood and puberty. Nutrition. 2000; 16(6):417-24. DOI: 10.1016/s0899-9007(00)00269-0. View

3.
Gupta D, Lammersfeld C, Burrows J, Dahlk S, Vashi P, Grutsch J . Bioelectrical impedance phase angle in clinical practice: implications for prognosis in advanced colorectal cancer. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004; 80(6):1634-8. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/80.6.1634. View

4.
. Guidelines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002; 26(1 Suppl):1SA-138SA. View

5.
Slee A, Birch D, Stokoe D . A comparison of the malnutrition screening tools, MUST, MNA and bioelectrical impedance assessment in frail older hospital patients. Clin Nutr. 2014; 34(2):296-301. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.04.013. View