Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr;22(4):1145-1157.
doi: 10.1111/ajt.16934. Epub 2022 Jan 8.

Revision of frailty assessment in kidney transplant recipients: Replacing unintentional weight loss with CT-assessed sarcopenia in the physical frailty phenotype

Xiaomeng Chen  1 , Omid Shafaat  1   2 , Yi Liu  1 , Elizabeth A King  1 , Clifford R Weiss  2 , Qian-Li Xue  3 , Jeremy D Walston  3 , Dorry L Segev  1   4 , Mara A McAdams-DeMarco  1   4
Affiliations

Revision of frailty assessment in kidney transplant recipients: Replacing unintentional weight loss with CT-assessed sarcopenia in the physical frailty phenotype

Xiaomeng Chen et al. Am J Transplant. 2022 Apr.

Abstract

Kidney transplantation (KT) experts did not support the use of subjective unintentional weight loss to measure shrinking in the physical frailty phenotype (PFP); a clinically feasible and predictive measure of shrinking is needed. To test whether unintentional weight loss could be replaced by an assessment of sarcopenia using existing CT scans, we performed a prospective cohort study of adult KT recipients with original PFP (oPFP) measured at admission (December 2008-February 2020). We ascertained sarcopenia by calculating skeletal muscle index from available, clinically obtained CTs within 1-year pre-KT (male < 50 cm2 /m2 ; female < 39 cm2 /m2 ) and combined it with the original four components to determine new PFP (nPFP) scores. Frailty was classified by frailty score: 0: non-frail; 1-2: pre-frail; ≥3: frail. Mortality and graft loss hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Model discrimination was quantified using Harrell's C-statistic. Among 1113 recipients, 18.6% and 17.1% were frail by oPFP and nPFP, respectively. Compared to non-frail recipients, frail patients by either PFP had higher risks of mortality (oPFP HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.07-2.62, C = 0.710; nPFP HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66, C = 0.710) and graft loss (oPFP HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.17-2.40, C = 0.631; nPFP HR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.15-2.40, C = 0.634) with similar discriminations. oPFP and nPFP are equally useful in risk prediction for KT recipients; oPFP may aid in screening patients for pre-KT interventions, while nPFP may assist in nuanced clinical decision-making.

Keywords: clinical research/practice; epidemiology; geriatrics; graft survival; kidney transplantation/nephrology; patient survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DISCLOSURE

The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:. Derivation of Study Population.
Abbreviations: CT, Computed Tomography; KT, kidney transplant; nPFP, new Physical Frailty Phenotype; oPFP, original Physical Frailty Phenotype.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:. Unadjusted Cumulative Incidence of All-Cause Mortality by Frailty at Kidney Transplantation (KT) Defined by (A) Original Physical Frailty Phenotype and (B) New Physical Frailty Phenotype in the Full Cohort.
oPFP and nPFP scores were calculated for all 1,103 recipients in the full cohort and with all covariates nonmissing; recipients without pre-KT CTs had their nPFP scores calculated based on the remaining 3 or 4 nonmissing components in compliance with the original protocol published by Fried et al.
Figure 3:
Figure 3:. Unadjusted Cumulative Incidence of All-Cause Graft Loss by Frailty at Kidney Transplantation (KT) Defined by (A) Original Physical Frailty Phenotype and (B) New Physical Frailty Phenotype in the Full Cohort.
oPFP and nPFP scores were calculated for all 1,103 recipients and with all covariates nonmissing; recipients without pre-KT CTs had their nPFP scores calculated based on the remaining 3 or 4 nonmissing components in compliance with the original protocol published by Fried et al.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Hoogendijk EO, Afilalo J, Ensrud KE, Kowal P, Onder G, Fried LP. Frailty: implications for clinical practice and public health. Lancet Oct 12 2019;394(10206):1365–1375. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31786-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haugen CE, Thomas AG, Chu NM, et al. Prevalence of frailty among kidney transplant candidates and recipients in the United States: Estimates from a National Registry and Multicenter Cohort Study. Am J Transplant Apr 2020;20(4):1170–1180. doi:10.1111/ajt.15709 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chu NM, Chen X, Norman SP, et al. Frailty Prevalence in Younger End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients Undergoing Dialysis and Transplantation. Am J Nephrol 2020;51(7):501–510. doi:10.1159/000508576 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pérez Fernández M, Martínez Miguel P, Ying H, et al. Comorbidity, Frailty, and Waitlist Mortality among Kidney Transplant Candidates of All Ages. Am J Nephrol 2019;49(2):103–110. doi:10.1159/000496061 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McAdams-DeMarco MA, Chu NM, Segev DL. Frailty and Long-Term Post-Kidney Transplant Outcomes. Curr Transplant Rep Mar 2019;6(1):45–51. doi:10.1007/s40472-019-0231-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types