Evaluation of Muscle Mass and Stiffness with Limb Ultrasound in COVID-19 Survivors.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
COVID-19
/ diagnosis
Cross-Sectional Studies
Extremities
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Italy
/ epidemiology
Male
Middle Aged
Muscle Strength
/ physiology
Muscle, Skeletal
/ diagnostic imaging
Muscular Diseases
/ diagnosis
Organ Size
SARS-CoV-2
/ physiology
Sarcopenia
/ diagnosis
Survivors
/ statistics & numerical data
Ultrasonography
COVID - 19
muscle
muscle mass
muscle quality
sarcopenia
ultrasound
Journal
Frontiers in endocrinology
ISSN: 1664-2392
Titre abrégé: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
24
10
2021
accepted:
25
01
2022
entrez:
7
3
2022
pubmed:
8
3
2022
medline:
11
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
acute illnesses, like COVID-19, can act as a catabolic stimulus on muscles. So far, no study has evaluated muscle mass and quality through limb ultrasound in post-COVID-19 patients. cross sectional observational study, including patients seen one month after hospital discharge for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The patients underwent a multidimensional evaluation. Moreover, we performed dominant medial gastrocnemius ultrasound (US) to characterize their muscle mass and quality. two hundred fifty-nine individuals (median age 67, 59.8% males) were included in the study. COVID-19 survivors with reduced muscle strength had a lower muscle US thickness (1.6 versus 1.73 cm, p =0.02) and a higher muscle stiffness (87 versus 76.3, p = 0.004) compared to patients with normal muscle strength. Also, patients with reduced Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) scores had a lower muscle US thickness (1.3 versus 1.71 cm, p = 0.01) and a higher muscle stiffness (104.9 versus 81.07, p = 0.04) compared to individuals with normal SPPB scores. The finding of increased muscle stiffness was also confirmed in patients with a pathological value (≥ 4) at the sarcopenia screening tool SARC-F (103.0 versus 79.55, p < 0.001). Muscle stiffness emerged as a significant predictor of probable sarcopenia (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% C.I. 1.002 - 1.04, p = 0.03). The optimal ultrasound cut-offs for probable sarcopenia were 1.51 cm for muscle thickness (p= 0.017) and 73.95 for muscle stiffness (p = 0.004). we described muscle ultrasound characteristics in post COVID-19 patients. Muscle ultrasound could be an innovative tool to assess muscle mass and quality in this population. Our preliminary findings need to be confirmed by future studies comparing muscle ultrasound with already validated techniques for measuring muscle mass and quality.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
acute illnesses, like COVID-19, can act as a catabolic stimulus on muscles. So far, no study has evaluated muscle mass and quality through limb ultrasound in post-COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
METHODS
cross sectional observational study, including patients seen one month after hospital discharge for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The patients underwent a multidimensional evaluation. Moreover, we performed dominant medial gastrocnemius ultrasound (US) to characterize their muscle mass and quality.
RESULTS
RESULTS
two hundred fifty-nine individuals (median age 67, 59.8% males) were included in the study. COVID-19 survivors with reduced muscle strength had a lower muscle US thickness (1.6 versus 1.73 cm, p =0.02) and a higher muscle stiffness (87 versus 76.3, p = 0.004) compared to patients with normal muscle strength. Also, patients with reduced Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) scores had a lower muscle US thickness (1.3 versus 1.71 cm, p = 0.01) and a higher muscle stiffness (104.9 versus 81.07, p = 0.04) compared to individuals with normal SPPB scores. The finding of increased muscle stiffness was also confirmed in patients with a pathological value (≥ 4) at the sarcopenia screening tool SARC-F (103.0 versus 79.55, p < 0.001). Muscle stiffness emerged as a significant predictor of probable sarcopenia (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% C.I. 1.002 - 1.04, p = 0.03). The optimal ultrasound cut-offs for probable sarcopenia were 1.51 cm for muscle thickness (p= 0.017) and 73.95 for muscle stiffness (p = 0.004).
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
we described muscle ultrasound characteristics in post COVID-19 patients. Muscle ultrasound could be an innovative tool to assess muscle mass and quality in this population. Our preliminary findings need to be confirmed by future studies comparing muscle ultrasound with already validated techniques for measuring muscle mass and quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35250860
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.801133
pmc: PMC8892603
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
801133Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Damanti, Cilla, Tuscano, De Lorenzo, Manganaro, Merolla, Pacioni, Pomaranzi, Tiraferri, Martinenghi, Vitali, Bosi, Conte, Giustina, Tresoldi and Rovere Querini.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Clin Nutr. 2020 Aug;39(8):2368-2388
pubmed: 31813698
J Physiol. 1996 Oct 1;496 ( Pt 1):287-97
pubmed: 8910216
Proc Nutr Soc. 2015 Nov;74(4):355-66
pubmed: 25851205
Br Med Bull. 2010;95:139-59
pubmed: 20200012
J Gerontol. 1993 Mar;48(2):M58-63
pubmed: 8473695
Aging Dis. 2018 Feb 1;9(1):151-164
pubmed: 29392090
Clin Nutr. 2015 Jun;34(3):335-40
pubmed: 25799486
Lancet. 2013 Mar 2;381(9868):752-62
pubmed: 23395245
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Jan;25(1):308-317
pubmed: 29116490
Clin Nutr. 2021 Mar;40(3):1330-1337
pubmed: 32900518
Muscle Nerve. 2000 Nov;23(11):1647-66
pubmed: 11054744
Br J Surg. 2016 Mar;103(4):434-42
pubmed: 26780231
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2019 Jan;19(1):61-65
pubmed: 30556237
Int J Sports Med. 2003 Feb;24(2):125-30
pubmed: 12669259
Am J Epidemiol. 2016 Jan 1;183(1):53-60
pubmed: 26643983
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2011 May;12(4):249-56
pubmed: 21527165
Front Physiol. 2015 Oct 29;6:302
pubmed: 26578974
Sci Rep. 2018 May 29;8(1):8274
pubmed: 29844513
Clin Nutr. 2021 Apr;40(4):2420-2426
pubmed: 33160700
PM R. 2016 May;8(5):453-62
pubmed: 26431809
Muscle Nerve. 2013 Apr;47(4):515-21
pubmed: 23400913
J Physiol. 2021 Feb;599(3):943-962
pubmed: 33247944
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Apr 1;18(4):290-300
pubmed: 28202349
Age Ageing. 2019 Jan 1;48(1):16-31
pubmed: 30312372
Clin Rheumatol. 2022 Jan;41(1):289-296
pubmed: 34713356
Clin Nutr. 2010 Apr;29(2):154-9
pubmed: 20060626
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2015 Sep;35(5):393-403
pubmed: 24902991
Curr Probl Cancer. 2020 Apr;44(2):100510
pubmed: 31703987
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 21;10(8):e0136217
pubmed: 26295702
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2014 Aug 15;117(4):363-9
pubmed: 24994884
J Biomech. 1984;17(10):725-35
pubmed: 6241196
Nutrients. 2019 May 31;11(6):
pubmed: 31159255
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2015 Jan;30(1):22-7
pubmed: 25483294
Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393(10191):2636-2646
pubmed: 31171417
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1999 Jan;86(1):195-201
pubmed: 9887131
Aging Dis. 2020 Dec 1;11(6):1345-1351
pubmed: 33269092
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2015 Jul;43(3):125-33
pubmed: 25906424
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Feb 1;100(2):105-109
pubmed: 33181531
Clin Imaging. 2019 Nov - Dec;58:22-26
pubmed: 31228827
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2012 Sep;38(9):1656-61
pubmed: 22749820
Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2021 Jun;43:369-376
pubmed: 34024542
Front Public Health. 2017 Nov 20;5:307
pubmed: 29209603
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Jul 15;102(14):1197-1204
pubmed: 32675661
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007 Apr;62(4):375-81
pubmed: 17452730
Panminerva Med. 2020 Oct 19;:
pubmed: 33073557
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Nov;95(11):2207-19
pubmed: 25064780
J Biomech. 2008;41(2):465-9
pubmed: 18031752
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2014 Mar;5(1):9-18
pubmed: 24532493
Acta Biomed. 2020 Jul 20;91(9-S):22-28
pubmed: 32701913
Skeletal Radiol. 2018 Apr;47(4):457-471
pubmed: 29224123
Longev Healthspan. 2014 Dec 01;3(1):9
pubmed: 25520782
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021 Oct;33(10):2887-2898
pubmed: 34328636
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Aug;14(8):531-2
pubmed: 23810110
Muscle Nerve. 1993 Mar;16(3):294-300
pubmed: 8446128
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;99:276-278
pubmed: 32763444
Ageing Res Rev. 2017 Jul;36:1-10
pubmed: 28223244
Nat Commun. 2015 Dec 15;6:10145
pubmed: 26666572
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1999 Jan;86(1):188-94
pubmed: 9887130
Am J Sports Med. 1999 Sep-Oct;27(5):594-9
pubmed: 10496575
J Anat. 1984 Dec;139 ( Pt 4):677-89
pubmed: 6526719
Acta Physiol Scand. 2005 Mar;183(3):291-8
pubmed: 15743389
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 04;9(12):e113637
pubmed: 25474696
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Jun;56(6):M366-72
pubmed: 11382797
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2019 Feb;10(1):207-217
pubmed: 30920778
Eur Geriatr Med. 2018 Dec;9(6):801-807
pubmed: 34674477
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2003 Dec;95(6):2229-34
pubmed: 12844499
Muscle Nerve. 2010 Jan;41(1):32-41
pubmed: 19722256
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 Nov;41(11):2906-12
pubmed: 26314496
Transplantation. 2017 Mar;101(3):565-574
pubmed: 27926595
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Apr;79(4):552-7
pubmed: 15051596
N Engl J Med. 1995 Mar 2;332(9):556-61
pubmed: 7838189