P581 - CLINICAL VALIDATION OF CALF CIRCUMFERENCE AND MID-UPPER ARM CIRCUMFERENCE FOR MUSCLE MASS ESTIMATION

P581

CLINICAL VALIDATION OF CALF CIRCUMFERENCE AND MID-UPPER ARM CIRCUMFERENCE FOR MUSCLE MASS ESTIMATION

I. Şeker^1,*, G. Kurik¹, M. M. Kivimets¹, A. A. Pilvar², T. Zenova¹, V. Boikanitš¹, R. Müller ², A. Forbes²

¹University of Tartu, ²Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia

Rationale: Reduced muscle mass is an important criterion in diagnostics of malnutrition and sarcopenia, and it is associated with a lower quality of life. The validation of simple and affordable measures, such as calf circumference and mid-upper arm circumference, to detect low muscle mass is important for clinical practice. The aim of the study was to find out whether limb circumferences are better predictors of muscle mass or fat mass.

Methods: A total of 66 consenting female patients undergoing DEXA scans at the internal medicine clinic were included in the study, of whom 89.4% were outpatients and 10.6% were inpatients. Calf circumference (CC) and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) were measured. Appendicular lean mass index (ALMI) and fat mass index (FMI), obtained from DEXA results, were used as reference standards for lean mass and fat mass. 

Results: The patients had a mean age of 65 (SD ± 13.36) years and a body mass index of 28.4 (SD ± 5.5) kg/m². The correlation between calf circumference (CC) and appendicular lean mass index (ALMI) was strong (r = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65–0.85), while CC had a moderate correlation with fat mass index (FMI) (r = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54–0.80). MUAC correlated moderately with ALMI (r = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56–0.81) and more strongly with FMI (r = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.75–0.90). All correlations were statistically significant (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: Both calf circumference (CC) and mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) demonstrate reliable correlations with muscle mass and fat mass, when compared to appendicular lean mass index (ALMI) and fat mass index (FMI). CC appears to be a slightly better indicator of muscle mass than MUAC, while MUAC is a better indicator of fat mass than CC. These findings support the use of  CC and MUAC as accessible and reliable estimates of muscle mass.

Disclosure of Interest: None declared