A simpler screening tool for sarcopenia in surgical patients

The association between sarcopenia, defined by a simplified screening tool, and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia and frailty are frequently observed in older adult patients and linked to unfavorable postoperative outcomes. Identifying low muscle mass and function is primary for diagnosing sarcopenia. The simpler screening, which excludes muscle mass measurement, exhibited strong predictive capabilities in identifying sarcopenia. This research explored the association between sarcopenia, as defined by the C3 formula, and long-term outcomes in older adult cancer patients who underwent surgery.

METHODS

Surgical cancer patients aged 60 and older were enrolled. Sarcopenia was identified using the C3 formula, assessing muscle strength through handgrip strength, physical performance via a 6-m walk test, and nutrition status via the Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form. Long-term outcomes were evaluated with the Barthel Index for activities of daily living (B-ADL) at 3 months, as well as 1-year mortality rates.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 251 patients, with 130 classified as sarcopenic according to the C3 formula. Compared with nonsarcopenic patients, patients with sarcopenia exhibited a higher frequency of moderate to severe disability (B-ADL ≤70) 3 months postdischarge (19.5% vs 5.2%; P = 0.001) and elevated 1-year mortality rates (29.5% vs 14.9%; P = 0.006). No significant differences were observed in infection rates, hospital stay duration, or in-hospital mortality. Distant organ metastasis (HR = 3.99; 95% CI = 2.25-7.07) and sarcopenia defined by the C3 formula (HR = 1.78; 95% CI = 1.01-3.15) were identified as independent risk factors for 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

The simplified sarcopenia screening tool was associated with increased rates of moderate to severe disability 3 months postdischarge and higher 1-year mortality rates compared with nonsarcopenic patients.

The prevalence and factors associated with sarcopenia in Thai older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence and identify factors associated with sarcopenia in older Thais.

Methods

Research studies were searched in online databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Thai-Journal Citation Index. The articles included in this review were limited to being published between January 1, 2013 and January 31, 2023 and observational study designs. The research quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies. A meta-analysis was performed using the JBI SUMARI software. The review protocol has been registered on PROSPERO with the assigned ID CRD42023420514.

Results

A total of 265 research articles were initially identified, out of which 17 articles were included in this study, including a total of 4,668 participants aged 60 years and over, consisting of 1,380 (29.6%) men and 3,288 (70.4%) women. The overall prevalence of sarcopenia in Thai older adults was 20.7% (95% CI 14.4%-27.8%). Subgroup analysis of the sarcopenia prevalence based on the study areas revealed that the prevalence was 33.4% (95% CI 28.7%-38.3%) in hospitalized individuals, 23.2% (95% CI 12.5%-35.9%) in outpatient clinic settings, and 17.3% (95% CI 9.4%-26.8%) in community-living older adults. Advanced age (OR = 4.60, 95% CI 3.07-6.91), being male (OR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.37-3.85), low body mass index (BMI) (OR = 8.95, 95% CI 6.05-13.25), and malnutrition (OR = 2.78, 95% CI 2.09-3.70) are strong predictors of sarcopenia in older adults in Thailand.

Conclusions

This systematic review represents the first assessment of the overall prevalence and factors associated with sarcopenia in Thai older adults, indicating its significant concern within this population. These findings are of importance for public health management aimed at preventing and managing sarcopenia in the country.

Validated Tools for Screening Sarcopenia: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Choosing the optimal sarcopenia screening tool for a specific clinical scenario is challenging. We aimed to summarize all validated sarcopenia screening tools with diagnostic accuracy tested in one or more study populations.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Hospitals, nursing homes, communities, or health checkups.

METHODS

We systematically searched 3 databases in April 2022: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Two review authors independently performed the study selection and data extraction. The included tools' contents, characteristics, and number of citations were summarized and visualized.

RESULTS

We summarized 102 diagnostic accuracy studies involving 53 screening tools, classified into 7 groups: questionnaires (n = 13); serum biomarkers (n = 10); formulas, algorithms, and models (n = 9); physical ability tests (n = 9); integration tools (n = 7); anthropometric indices (n = 3); and ultrasound or bioimpedance analysis (n = 2). The most commonly used questionnaire was SARC-F (770 citations), followed by SARC-CalF (254 citations) and MSRA-7 (61 citations). Handgrip strength and Ishii score were the most widely used physical performance tests (331 citations) and formulas (294 citations), respectively. Sarcopenia index (based on serum cystatin C and creatinine) and calf circumference were the most commonly used serum biomarkers (123 citations) and anthropometric indexes (127 citations), respectively. Ultrasound was the most commonly used imaging tool for screening sarcopenia (57 citations). The included tools varied significantly in content. Various tools assessed some or all components of sarcopenia with different methods, and others assessed different domains, such as age, body mass index, falls, diet, and even mental health. We also summarized the screening tools that were validated in different clinical settings (hospitals, communities, nursing homes, and health checkups).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

More than 50 validated tools are currently available for screening sarcopenia in different clinical settings. The results of this review may help clinicians and researchers in selecting optimal tools for sarcopenia in different clinical scenarios and in developing future tools.