•  
  •  
 

EVALUATION OF BIOELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE VECTOR ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO FALL RISK APPRAISAL CATEGORIZATION IN OLDER ADULTS

Abstract

David H. Fukuda, Ladda Thiamwong, Joon-Hyuk Park, Jeffrey R. Stout, FACSM. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.

BACKGROUND: Fall risk appraisal of older adults according to their physiological (i.e., balance/postural sway) and psychological capabilities (i.e., fear of falling/fall efficacy) has been proposed with individuals categorized into congruent (high fear/poor balance), incongruent (low fear/poor balance), irrational (high fear/normal balance), and rational (low fear/normal balance) groups. Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) allows for the examination of body tissues and is used in clinical conditions that may influence hydration and nutritional status. Thus, the underlying differences between fall risk appraisal groups may be highlighted through BIVA evaluation. The purpose of this study is to examine BIVA according to fall risk appraisal categorization in older adults. METHODS: Following completion of postural sway and fall efficacy assessments, a cross-sectional analysis of 121 older adults (age: 74.7 ± 7.4 y; body mass index: 26.9 ± 5.0 kg·m-2; 94 women and 27 men) separated into congruent (n=20), incongruent (n=24), irrational (n=21), and rational (n=56) groups was conducted. Raw, whole-body BIA parameters (50 kHz), including resistance, reactance, and phase angle, were compared between groups using ANOVA, while BIVA procedures were performed with two-sample Hotelling’s T2 tests. RESULTS:Significant differences between groups were found for reactance (p=0.007) but not resistance (p=0.590) or phase angle (p=0.315). Post-hoc analyses showed greater Xc (p=0.021; d=-0.807) in the rational group (59.2 ± 13.3 Ω) compared to the congruent group (46.7 ± 12.0 Ω). BIVA evaluation confirmed differences between rational and congruent groups (T2 = 9.6; p=0.012), and further identified potential differences between the rational and incongruent groups (T2 = 8.5; p=0.019). CONCLUSION: Fall risk appraisal groups differentiated primarily by the physiological risk of falling may exhibit unique body tissue characteristics estimated by BIA and highlighted by BIVA. Specifically, reactance values that may be indicative of body cell mass and/or cell membrane integrity appear to distinguish between these groups. Grant or funding information: Funded by NIH R03 AG069799

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS