Osteoporosis International

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 217–225

Broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) of the heel bone and its correlates in men and women in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort: a cross-sectional population-based study

  • Ailsa Welch
  • Joanna Camus
  • Nichola Dalzell
  • Suzy Oakes
  • Jonathan Reeve
  • K. T. Khaw
Original Article

Abstract

Osteoporotic fractures have substantial clinical and public health impact. Bone quality is an important determinant of fracture risk. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) of bone measured as broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) has been shown to predict fracture risk. However, there have been very few large population studies, particularly in men. We investigated the correlates of calcaneal BUA using a CUBA clinical machine in 15,668 middle and older aged men and women (42–82 years) from the UK, EPIC-Norfolk cohort. At all ages mean BUA was significantly greater in men than women (men, 90.1±17.6; women 72.1±16.5). The age-related decline in BUA was five times greater in women than men (−0.77 vs. −0.15 dB/MHz per year). Pre- and post-menopausal bone loss was 0.39 and 0.85 dB/MHz per year, respectively. In univariate regression BUA increased with weight and height by 0.45 dB/MHz per kg and 0.68 per cm in women and 0.24 dB/MHz per kg and 0.33 per cm in men. BUA increased with body mass index (BMI) by 0.84 dB/MHz per kg/m2 in women and 0.55 in men. However, weight was twice as influential as height in men and seven times as great in women. Age, weight and height explained 27% of the variance of BUA in women, but only 3% in men. Adjusted BUA was significantly lower in men and women with an existing history of any hip, wrist or spinal fracture both overall and when analysed for specific site. Figures were: all fractures 66.8 vs. 72.5 dB/MHz (P<0.001), women; 84.1 vs. 90.5 (P<0.001), men; hip fractures 61.9 vs. 72.2 dB/MHz (P<0.001), women; 81.5 vs. 90.2 (P<0.001), men; wrist fractures 66.6 vs. 72.5 dB/MHz (P<0.001), women; 81.5 vs. 90.2 (P<0.001), men; spinal fractures 68.1 vs. 72.1 dB/MHz (P<0.01), women; 85.1 vs. 90.2 (P<0.01), men. These differences equate to reductions of 14, 9 and 6% and 10, 7 and 6% for fractures of the hip, wrist and spine in the BUA of women and men, respectively. Thus, despite the overall gender difference in BUA the relative magnitude of a previous history of fracture was equally important in both men and women. Adjusted BUA was also lower in those with previous history of osteoporosis. In women currently taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) the adjusted BUA was 5 dB/MHz or one-third of an SD greater than in those who did not. The BUA of those with a current smoking habit was 1.7% lower in women and 3.2% lower in men. Overall, there are substantial sex differences in the relationship of the physical and osteoporotic risk factors associated with BUA. A better understanding of these determinants of heel ultrasound may provide insights into how some of the sex differences in bone health can be explained and bone loss in later life minimised.

Keywords

BMI Broadband ultrasound attenuation Calcaneous CUBA Fractures Heel sonometry Hormone replacement therapy Osteoporosis Quantitative ultrasound Smoking 

References

  1. 1.
    Department of Health (1998) Nutrition and bone health: with particular reference to calcium and vitamin D. Report on Health and Social Subjects:49. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prins SH, Jorgensen HL, Jorgensen LV, Hassager C (1998) The role of quantitative ultrasound in the assessment of bone: a review. Clin Physiol 18:3–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pluijm SM, Graafmans WC, Bouter LM, Lips P (1999) Ultrasound measurements for the prediction of osteoporotic fractures in elderly people. Osteoporos Int 9:550–556PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer DC, Gluer CC, Cauley JA, Vogt TM, Ensrud KE, Genant HK, Black DM (1997) Broadband ultrasound attenuation predicts fractures strongly and independently of densitometry in older women. A prospective study. Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Arch Intern Med 157:629–634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hans D, Dargent-Molina P, Schott AM, Sebert JL, Cormier C, Kotzki PO, Delmas PD, Pouilles JM, Breart G, Meunier PJ (1996) Ultrasonographic heel measurements to predict hip fracture in elderly women: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet 348:511–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sosa M, Saavedra P, Munoz-Torres M, Alegre J, Gomez C, Gonzalez-Macias J, Guanabens N, Hawkins F, Lozano C, Martinez M, Mosquera J, Perez-Cano R, Quesada M, Salas E (2002) Quantitative ultrasound calcaneus measurements: normative data and precision in the Spanish population. Osteoporos Int 13:487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoshimi I, Aoyagi K, Okano K, Yahata Y, Kusano Y, Moji K, Tahara Y, Takemoto T (2001) Stiffness index of the calcaneus measured by quantitative ultrasound and menopause among Japanese women: the Hizen-Oshima Study. Tohoku J Exp Med 195:93–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frost ML, Blake GM, Fogelman I (2001) Quantitative ultrasound and bone mineral density are equally strongly associated with risk factors for osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 16:406–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin JD, Chen JF, Chang HY, Ho C (2001) Evaluation of bone mineral density by quantitative ultrasound of bone in 16,862 subjects during routine health examination. Br J Radiol 74:602–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hadji P, Hars O, Gorke K, Emons G, Schulz KD (2000) Quantitative ultrasound of the os calcis in postmenopausal women with spine and hip fracture. J Clin Densitom 3:233–239Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kung AW, Tang GW, Luk KD, Chu LW (1999) Evaluation of a new calcaneal quantitative ultrasound system and determination of normative ultrasound values in southern Chinese women. Osteoporos Int 9:312–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson P, Taylor J, Fisher A, Oliver R (1998) Quantitative heel ultrasound in 3180 women between 45 and 75 years of age: compliance, normal ranges and relationship to fracture history. Osteoporos Int 8:211–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Truscott JG (1997) Reference data for ultrasonic bone measurement: variation with age in 2,087 Caucasian women aged 16–93 years. Br J Radiol 70:1010–1016PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Daele PL, Burger H, Algra D, Hofman A, Grobbee DE, Birkenhager JC, Pols HA (1994) Age-associated changes in ultrasound measurements of the calcaneus in men and women: the Rotterdam Study. J Bone Miner Res 9:1751–1757PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Day N, Oakes S, Luben R, Khaw KT, Bingham S, Welch A, Wareham N (1999) EPIC-Norfolk: study design and characteristics of the cohort. European Prospective Investigation of Cancer. Br J Cancer 80 [Suppl 1]:95–103Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Langton CM, Langton DK (1997) Male and female normative data for ultrasound measurement of the calcaneus within the UK adult population. Br J Radiol 70:580–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen TV, Kelly PJ, Sambrook PN, Gilbert C, Pocock NA, Eisman JA(1994) Lifestyle factors and bone density in the elderly: implications for osteoporosis prevention. J Bone Miner Res 9:1339–1346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    May H, Murphy S, Khaw KT (1994) Age-associated bone loss in men and women and its relationship to weight. Age Ageing 23:235–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blunt BA, Klauber MR, Barrett-Connor EL, Edelstein SL (1994) Sex differences in bone mineral density in 1653 men and women in the sixth through tenth decades of life: the Rancho Bernardo Study. J Bone Miner Res 9:1333–1338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wu CY, Gluer CC, Jergas M, Bendavid E, Genant HK (1995) The impact of bone size on broadband ultrasound attenuation. Bone 16:137–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ailsa Welch
    • 1
  • Joanna Camus
    • 1
  • Nichola Dalzell
    • 2
  • Suzy Oakes
    • 1
  • Jonathan Reeve
    • 2
  • K. T. Khaw
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Strangeways Research LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Clinical Gerontology UnitUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations