• 1. Freeman LM. Cachexia and sarcopenia: emerging syndromes of importance in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 2012;26:317.

  • 2. von Haehling S. Wasting away: how to treat cachexia and muscle wasting in chronic disease? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2017;83:25992601.

  • 3. Michel KE, Anderson W, Cupp C, et al. Correlation of a feline muscle mass score with body composition determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Br J Nutr 2011;106(suppl 1):S57S59.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4. Baldwin K, Bartges J, Buffington T, et al. AAHA nutritional assessment guidelines for cats and cats. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2010;46:285296.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5. Freeman L, Becvarova I, Cave N, et al. WSAVA nutritional assessment guidelines. J Small Anim Pract 2011;52:385396.

  • 6. Freeman LM, Kehayias JJ, Roubenoff R. Use of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) to measure lean body mass, body fat, and bone mineral content (BMC) in dogs and cats (lett). J Vet Intern Med 1996;10:99100.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Hutchinson D, Sutherland-Smith J, Watson AL, et al. Assessment of methods of evaluating sarcopenia in old dogs. Am J Vet Res 2012;73:17941800.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8. Bullen LE, Evola MG, Griffith EH, et al. Validation of ultrasonographic muscle thickness measurements as compared to the gold standard of computed tomography in dogs. Peer J 2017;5:e2926.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Sergi G, Trevisan C, Veronese N, et al. Imaging of sarcopenia. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:15191524.

  • 10. Nijholt W, Scafoglieri A, Jager-Wittenaar H, et al. The reliability and validity of ultrasound to quantify muscles in older adults: a systematic review. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017;8:702712.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Freeman LM, Sutherland-Smith J, Prantil LR, et al. Quantitative assessment of muscle in dogs using a vertebral epaxial muscle score. Can J Vet Res 2017;81:255260.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. Freeman LM, Sutherland-Smith J, Cummings C, et al. Evaluation of a quantitatively derived value for assessment of muscle mass in clinically normal cats. Am J Vet Res 2018;79:11881192.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Freeman LM, Michel KE, Zanghi BM, et al. Evaluation of the use of muscle condition score and ultrasonographic measurements for assessment of muscle mass in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2019;80:595600.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Laflamme D. Development and validation of a body condition score system for cats. Feline Pract 1997;25(5/6):1318.

  • 15. World Small Animal Veterinary Association Global Nutrition Committee. Muscle condition score charts for cats. Available at: www.wsava.org/Guidelines/Global-Nutrition-Guidelines. Accessed Jul 21, 2019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Sharma A, Lavie CJ, Borer JS, et al. Meta-analysis of the relation of body mass index to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure. Am J Cardiol 2015;115:14281434.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Finn E, Freeman LM, Rush JE. The relationship between body weight, body condition, and survival in cats with heart failure. J Vet Intern Med 2010;24:13691374.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Freeman LM, Lachaud MP, Matthews S, et al. Evaluation of weight loss over time in cats with chronic kidney disease. J Vet Intern Med 2016;30:16611666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Lang T, Streeper T, Cawthon P, et al. Sarcopenia: etiology, clinical consequences, intervention, and assessment. Osteoporos Int 2010;21:543559.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Boutin RD, Yao L, Canter RJ, et al. Sarcopenia: current concepts and imaging implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:W255W266.

  • 21. Frontera WR. Physiologic changes of the musculoskeletal system with aging: a brief review. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Am 2017;28:705711.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Sutherland-Smith J, Hutchinson D, Freeman LM. Comparison of computed tomographic attenuation values for epaxial muscles in old and young dogs. Am J Vet Res 2019;80:174177.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Usefulness of muscle condition score and ultrasonographic measurements for assessment of muscle mass in cats with cachexia and sarcopenia

View More View Less
  • 1 1Department of Clinical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, MA 01536.
  • | 2 2Department of Clinical Sciences and Advanced Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
  • | 3 3Nestlé Purina Research, St Louis, MO 63164.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare muscle condition scores (MCSs) and muscle ultrasonographic measurements in cats with and without muscle loss and to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility of MCS assessment.

ANIMALS

40 cats of various ages, body condition scores (BCSs), and MCSs.

PROCEDURES

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Body weight, BCS, MCS, epaxial muscle height (EMH), vertebral epaxial muscle score (VEMS), and forelimb epaxial muscle score (FLEMS) were assessed in each cat. The MCS for each cat was assessed 3 separate times by each of 5 raters.

RESULTS

The MCS was significantly correlated with EMH (r = 0.59), VEMS (r = 0.66), and FLEMS (r = 0.41). For MCS, the overall value of the κ coefficient for interrater agreement (reproducibility) was 0.43 and the overall value of the κ coefficient for intrarater agreement (repeatability) ranged from 0.49 to 0.76.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Ultrasonographic measurements of muscle may be useful for assessing muscle loss in individual cats over time. However, for the cats of this study, no advantage was observed for assessment of VEMS or FLEMS over EMH. Substantial repeatability and moderate reproducibility were shown when MCS was used for assessment of muscle mass in cats. Prospective ultrasonographic studies are warranted to evaluate the usefulness of MCS and EMH assessment for evaluation of changes in muscle mass of cats over time.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare muscle condition scores (MCSs) and muscle ultrasonographic measurements in cats with and without muscle loss and to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility of MCS assessment.

ANIMALS

40 cats of various ages, body condition scores (BCSs), and MCSs.

PROCEDURES

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Body weight, BCS, MCS, epaxial muscle height (EMH), vertebral epaxial muscle score (VEMS), and forelimb epaxial muscle score (FLEMS) were assessed in each cat. The MCS for each cat was assessed 3 separate times by each of 5 raters.

RESULTS

The MCS was significantly correlated with EMH (r = 0.59), VEMS (r = 0.66), and FLEMS (r = 0.41). For MCS, the overall value of the κ coefficient for interrater agreement (reproducibility) was 0.43 and the overall value of the κ coefficient for intrarater agreement (repeatability) ranged from 0.49 to 0.76.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Ultrasonographic measurements of muscle may be useful for assessing muscle loss in individual cats over time. However, for the cats of this study, no advantage was observed for assessment of VEMS or FLEMS over EMH. Substantial repeatability and moderate reproducibility were shown when MCS was used for assessment of muscle mass in cats. Prospective ultrasonographic studies are warranted to evaluate the usefulness of MCS and EMH assessment for evaluation of changes in muscle mass of cats over time.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Fages’ present address is Centre Vétérinaire DMV Montréal, Lachine, QC H8T 3R2, Canada.

Address correspondence to Dr. Freeman (lisa.freeman@tufts.edu).