PD465 - PREVALENCE OF SARCOPENIC OBESITY IN HEART FAILURE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH DIFFERENT ANTHROPOMETRIC INDICATORS

PD465

PREVALENCE OF SARCOPENIC OBESITY IN HEART FAILURE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH DIFFERENT ANTHROPOMETRIC INDICATORS

I. Damé Vogg^1,*, A. P. T. Fayh², É. C. Ternus Ribeiro³, M. D. Machado Vale^4,5, G. C. Souza^5,6

¹Graduate Program in Nutrition Science, ²Postgraduate Program in Nutrition Science, Department of Nutrition, University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil, ³The george Institute for Global Health UK, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, ⁴Graduate Program in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, ⁵Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, ⁶Graduate Program in Food, Nutrition and Health, Medical School, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto alegre, Brazil

Rationale: Sarcopenic obesity (SO) is associated with worse outcomes in heart failure (HF), but its identification remains challenging due to inconsistencies in assessment methods. Although SOGLI recommends Body Mass Index (BMI) for screening, this measure does not account for fat distribution, potentially leading to misclassification and underdiagnosis; therefore, this study evaluated SO prevalence using different anthropometric indicators.

Methods: Cross-sectional study including adults (aged ≥18 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of HF follow-up at a single-center in Brazil. To identify sarcopenia, we used low muscle strength assessed by the Handgrip Strength Test(HGS) and Calf Circumference(CC) adjusted for BMI. Obesity was classified by waist to height ratio(WHtR) ≥0.5, waist circumference (WC) above 102cm (men) and 88cm (women), or > 30 kg/m2 BMI. SO was defined as combining sarcopenia and one anthropometric method for obesity.

Results: A total of 264 individuals were included, 67.4% were men, with a mean age of 56.5±12.7 years. A total of 23% had reduced HGS, 42% had reduced BMI-adjusted CC and 11% had sarcopenia. The prevalence of obesity in the sample widely varied depending on the diagnostic criteria used: 90.7% based on WHtR, 60.3% based on WC, and 39.9% based on BMI. The prevalence of SO was 9.0%, 5.9% and 3.4% when based on WHtR, WC, and BMI , respectively.

Conclusion: SO-WHtR had a higher prevalence in this population when compared to WC or BMI. These findings suggest that use of WHtR could represent a simple, cost-effective, and practical tool to complement the evaluation of SO in ambulatory care.

Disclosure of Interest: None declared