Literature DB >> 17699481

Development and validation of bioimpedance analysis prediction equations for dry weight in hemodialysis patients.

Carlo Basile1, Luigi Vernaglione, Biagio Di Iorio, Vincenzo Bellizzi, Domenico Chimienti, Carlo Lomonte, Anna Rubino, Nicola D'Ambrosio.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of hydration status and specification of dry weight (DW) are major problems in the clinical treatment of hemodialysis (HD) patients. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has been recognized as a noninvasive and simple technique for the determination of DW in HD patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: This study was designed to develop and validate BIA prediction equations for DW in HD patients. It included white adults (1540 disease-free adults with normal body mass index [BMI] and 456 prevalent and 27 incident HD patients). All participants underwent at least one single-frequency BIA measurement (800 muA and 50 kHz alternating sinusoidal current with a standard tetrapolar technique). The BIA variable measured was resistance (R). Data of 1463 (95% of the cohort) disease-free individuals with normal BMI (prediction sample) were used to establish best-fitting BIA prediction equations of body weight. The latter were cross-validated in the residual 5% subset (77 individuals) of the same cohort (validation sample).
RESULTS: Multiple regression analysis showed a significant relationship among body weight, R, age, and height in 739 men (R(2) = 0.82, P < 0.0001) and among body weight, R, and height in 724 women (R(2) = 0.68, P < 0.0001) in the prediction sample. The Bland Altman analysis showed a mean difference between predicted and measured body weight of 0.3 +/- 1.0 kg (95% confidence interval +/- 2.0 kg) in the validation sample. The BIA prediction equations that were obtained in disease-free individuals with normal BMI were applied to a cohort of 456 prevalent HD patients: The mean difference between achieved and estimated DW was 0.1 +/- 1.0 kg (P = 0.53) in men and -0.3 +/- 1.0 (P = 0.76) in women. Finally, BIA prediction equations were tested in a cohort of 27 incident HD patients. The mean difference between predicted and achieved DW was -0.6 +/- 1.0 kg (P = 0.76) in men and 0.6 +/- 1.0 (P = 0.50) in women.
CONCLUSIONS: This study was able to develop and validate BIA prediction equations for DW in HD patients. They seem to be a promising tool; however, they still need external validation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17699481     DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00240107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol        ISSN: 1555-9041            Impact factor:   8.237


  13 in total

1.  Extracellular fluid management and hypertension in urban dwelling versus rural dwelling hemodialysis patients.

Authors:  Marcello Tonelli; Anita Lloyd; Neesh Pannu; Scott Klarenbach; Pietro Ravani; Kailash Jindal; Jennifer MacRae; Larry Unsworth; Braden Manns; Brenda Hemmelgarn
Journal:  J Nephrol       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.902

2.  Whole-body single-frequency bioimpedance analysis in pediatric hemodialysis patients.

Authors:  Gia Oh; Cynthia Wong; Brandy Begin; Kari Salsbery; Scott Sutherland; Abanti Chaudhuri
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 3.714

3.  Monitoring of body water composition by the simultaneous use of bioelectrical impedance analysis and Crit-Line(®) during hemodialysis.

Authors:  Naoki Sugano; Keitaro Yokoyama; Naohiko Kato; Yoichiro Hara; Satoshi Endo; Jun Mitome; Taisei Kin; Goro Tokudome; Satoru Kuriyama; Tatsuo Hosoya; Takashi Yokoo
Journal:  Clin Exp Nephrol       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 2.801

4.  The effect of active vitamin D administration on muscle mass in hemodialysis patients.

Authors:  Atsushi Mori; Tomoya Nishino; Yoko Obata; Masayuki Nakazawa; Misaki Hirose; Hiroshi Yamashita; Tadashi Uramatsu; Ken Shinzato; Shigeru Kohno
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.859

5.  Prediction of hemodialysis vascular access failure using segmental bioimpedance analysis parameters.

Authors:  Hyunwoo Kim; Hye Mi Seo; Ji Young Kim; Miyeon Kim
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 2.370

6.  The comparative evaluation of patients' body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: Bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method.

Authors:  Neda Alijanian; Afsoon Emami Naini; Shahrzad Shahidi; Lida Liaghat; Rahil Riahi Samani
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.852

7.  Comparison of hydration and nutritional status between young and elderly hemodialysis patients through bioimpedance analysis.

Authors:  Jung Eun Lee; In Young Jo; Song Mi Lee; Woo Jeong Kim; Hoon Young Choi; Sung Kyu Ha; Hyung Jong Kim; Hyeong Cheon Park
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 4.458

8.  Comparison of experimental and bioelectrical impedance analysis methods in calculation of dry weight in peritoneal dialysis patients.

Authors:  A Emami Naini; J Savoj; A Atapoor; M Mortazavi; Sh Taheri
Journal:  Adv Biomed Res       Date:  2012-03-28

Review 9.  Vasopressin and prevention of hypotension during hemodialysis.

Authors:  Seyed Seifollah Beladi Mousavi; Mohamad Reza Tamadon
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 0.611

10.  Pulmonary Function in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: Effects of Hemodialysis and Fluid Overload.

Authors:  Süreyya Yılmaz; Yasar Yildirim; Zülfükar Yilmaz; Ali Veysel Kara; Mahsuk Taylan; Melike Demir; Mehmet Coskunsel; Ali Kemal Kadiroglu; Mehmet Emin Yilmaz
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-08-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.