Our Team

DISCUSSIONAlthough segmental eight-point bioimpedance techniques provided comparable TBW measurements not affected by standing over a period of 10-15 min, the ECW/TBW ratio appeared to be significantly lower in InBody compared with Seca and Hydra. Results from our study showed lack of agreement between different bioimpedance devices; direct comparison of ECW, ICW, and ECW/TBW between different devices should be avoided and clinicians should use the same device to track the fluid status in their HD population in a longitudinal direction.INTRODUCTIONSegmental eight-point bioimpedance has been increasingly used in practice. However, whether changes in bioimpedance analysis components before and after hemodialysis (HD) using this technique in a standing position is comparable to traditional whole-body wrist-to-ankle method is still unclear. We aimed to investigate the differences between two eight-point devices (InBody 770 and Seca mBCA 514) and one wrist-to-ankle (Hydra 4200) in HD patients and healthy subjects in a standing position.FINDINGSOverall, total body water (TBW) was not different between the three devices, but InBody showed lower extracellular water (ECW) and higher intracellular water (ICW) compared to the other two devices. When intradialytic weight loss was used as a surrogate for changes in ECW (∆ECW) and changes in TBW (∆TBW), ∆ECW was underestimated by Hydra (-0.79 ± 0.89 L, p < 0.01), InBody (-1.44 ± 0.65 L, p < 0.0001), and Seca (-0.32 ± 1.34, n.s.). ∆TBW was underestimated by Hydra (-1.14 ± 2.81 L, n.s.) and InBody (-0.52 ± 0.85 L, p < 0.05) but overestimated by Seca (+0.93 ± 3.55 L, n.s.).METHODSThirteen HD patients were studied pre- and post-HD, and 12 healthy subjects once. Four measurements were performed in the following order: InBody; Seca; Hydra; and InBody again. Electrical equivalent models by each bioimpedance method and the fluid volume estimates by each device were also compared.

Diagnosis of fluid overload (FO) in early stage is essential to manage fluid balance of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the identification of fluid status in patients with CKD is largely dependent on the physician's clinical acumen. The ratio of fluid overload to extracellular volume (FO/ECV) has been used as a reference to assess fluid status. The primary aim of this study was to compare FO/ECV with other bioimpedance methods and clinical assessments in patients with CKD. Whole body ECV, intracellular volume (ICV), total body water (TBW), and calf normalized resistivity (CNR) were measured (Hydra 4200). Thresholds of FO utilizing CNR and ECV/TBW were derived by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis based on data from pooled patients with CKD and healthy subjects (HSs). Clinical assessments of FO in patients with CKD were performed by nephrologists. Patients with CKD (stage 3 and stage 4) (n = 50) and HSs (n = 189) were studied. The thresholds of FO were ≤14.3 (10-2 Ωm3/kg) for females and ≤13.1 (10-2 Ωm3/kg) for males using CNR and ≥0.445 in females and ≥0.434 in males using ECV/TBW. FO was diagnosed in 78%, 62%, and 52% of patients with CKD by CNR, FO/ECV, and ECV/TBW, respectively, whereas only 24% of patients with CKD were diagnosed to be FO by clinical assessment. The proportion of FO in patients with nondialysis CKD was largely underestimated by clinical assessment compared with FO/ECV, CNR, and ECV/TBW. CNR and FO/ECV methods were more sensitive than ECV/TBW in identifying fluid overload in these patients with CKD.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We found that fluid overload (FO) in patients with nondialysis CKD was largely underestimated by clinical assessment compared with bioimpedance methods, which was majorly due to lack of appropriate techniques to assess FO. In addition, although degree of FO by bioimpedance markers positively correlated with the age in healthy subjects (HSs), no difference was observed in the three hydration markers between groups of 50 ≤ age <70 yr and age ≥70 yr in the patients with CKD.

DISCUSSIONWhile about half of the patients had normal fluid status pre-HD, a considerable proportion of patients was either fluid overloaded or depleted, indicating the need for tools to objectively quantify fluid status.INTRODUCTIONInadequate fluid status remains a key driver of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients. Quantification of fluid overload (FO) using bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) has become standard in many countries. To date, no BIS device has been approved in the United States for fluid status assessment in kidney patients. Therefore, no previous quantification of fluid status in US kidney patients using BIS has been reported. Our aim was to conduct a cross-sectional BIS-based assessment of fluid status in an urban US HD population.FINDINGSWe studied 170 urban HD patients (age 61 ± 14 years, 60% male). Pre- and post-HD FO (mean ± SD), were 2.2 ± 2.4 and -0.2 ± 2.7 L, respectively. Pre-HD, 43% of patients were fluid overloaded, 53% normally hydrated, and 4% fluid depleted. Post-HD, 12% were fluid overloaded, 55% normohydrated and 32% fluid depleted. Only 48% of fluid overloaded patients were hypertensive, while 38% were normotensive and 14% hypotensive. Fluid status did not differ significantly between African Americans (N = 90) and Caucasians (N = 61).METHODSWe determined fluid status in chronic HD patients using whole body BIS (Body Composition Monitor, BCM). The BCM reports FO in liters; negative FO denotes fluid depletion. Measurements were performed before dialysis. Post-HD FO was estimated by subtracting the intradialytic weight loss from the pre-HD FO.