Bioelectrical phase angle values in a clinical sample of ambulatory rehabilitation patients.
BACKGROUND
Phase angle (PhA) is derived from the resistance and reactance measurements obtained from bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) and is considered indicative of cellular health and membrane integrity. This study measured PhA values of rehabilitation patients and compared them to reference values, measures of functional ability and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to explore their utility as a clinical tool to monitor disease progression and treatment efficacy.


METHODS
This cross-sectional observational study was conducted on 215 ambulatory rehabilitation patients aged 20 - 94 years. All participants had been hospitalised for a stroke, orthopaedic or other condition resulting in a functional limitation. PhA was derived from BIA analysis and functional ability characterised using the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), timed up and go (TUG) and maximal quadriceps strength (MQS). Serum levels of CRP were also collected.


RESULTS
Stroke patients had the highest PhA (5.3 degrees) followed by elective orthopaedic surgery (5.0 degrees) with the other group (4.3 degrees) significantly lower than both previous categories (p < 0.001). Ambulatory rehabilitation patients' PhA values were dependent on age and sex (p < 0.001), lower than published age matched healthy reference values (p < or = 0.05) and similar to other hospitalised or sick groups, but also higher than values reported in critically ill patients. Patients with CRP values less than 10 mg.L-1 had significantly (p = 0.005) higher mean PhA values. Furthermore, the highest functional status quartiles had significantly higher PhAs (p < or = 0.04) for the FIM, MQS and TUG measures.


CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that the phase angles of rehabilitation patients are between those of healthy individuals and seriously ill patients, thereby supporting claims that PhA is indicative of general health status. Phase angles are a potentially useful indicator of functional status in patients commencing an ambulatory rehabilitation program with a normal hydration status.
Gunn
Simon M
SM
Flinders University Department of Rehabilitation and Aged Care, Repatriation General Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. simon.gunn@flinders.edu.au
Halbert
Julie A
JA
Giles
Lynne C
LC
Stepien
Jacqueline M
JM
Miller
Michelle D
MD
Crotty
Maria
M
Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61-5
14258950
New Horiz. 1996 Nov;4(4):493-503
8968982
Metabolism. 1997 Jul;46(7):826-32
9225839
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jul;82(1):49-52
16002799
Physiol Meas. 2000 May;21(2):211-20
10847188
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Apr;86(6):509-16
11944099
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2003 Dec;122(4):361-70
14614757
DICP. 1989 Jul-Aug;23(7-8):548-55
2669371
Nutrition. 2003 Nov-Dec;19(11-12):917-21
14624938
Nutrition. 2001 Jul-Aug;17(7-8):534-41
11448570
Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Sep;64(3 Suppl):413S-422S
8780357
Kidney Int. 1996 Dec;50(6):2103-8
8943496
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Feb;39(2):142-8
1991946
Br J Nutr. 2004 Dec;92(6):957-62
15613258
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1993 Sep-Oct;17(5):404-6
8289403
Nutrition. 2000 Feb;16(2):120-4
10696635
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Dec;80(6):1634-8
15585779
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995 May 1;9(1):20-5
7712230