K Cumming1, G E Hoyle, J D Hutchison, R L Soiza. 1. Dr Roy L Soiza, c/o Wards 11/12, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZN, tel: 00 44 1224 558109; e-mail: roy.soiza@nhs.net.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Management of hyponatraemia depends crucially on accurate determination of volaemic (hydration) status but this is notoriously challenging to measure in older people. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) provides a validated means of determining total body water (TBW), but its clinical utility in determining volaemic status in hyponatraemia has never been tested. This study assessed the utility of BIA in the clinical management of hyponatraemia in elderly patients with fragility fractures (EPFF), a group at high risk of hyponatraemia. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of consenting patients ≥65 years with fragility fractures (N=127). SETTING: University teaching hospital in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥665 years with fragility fractures with capacity to consent to participation. MEASUREMENTS: BIA and standard clinical examination procedures (jugular venous distension, skin turgor, mouth and axillary moistness, peripheral oedema, capillary refill time, overall impression) were performed daily throughout each participant's hospital stay. Volaemic status of hyponatraemia was determined by an expert panel using clinical data (history, examination, nursing observations and laboratory tests) blinded to TBW readings. Cohen's kappa was calculated to assess the level of agreement between the expert panel and both BIA and standard clinical examination measures in determining the volaemic state of hyponatraemia. RESULTS: 26/33 (79%) cases of hyponatraemia had sufficient clinical information to allow determination of volaemic status by BIA. There was moderate level of agreement between BIA and the expert panel, kappa 0.52 (p<.001). All kappa values for standard clinical assessments of volaemic status neared zero, indicating nil to slight agreement. CONCLUSION: BIA outperformed all aspects of the standard clinical examination in determining the volaemic status of hyponatraemic EPFF, suggesting it may be useful in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: Management of hyponatraemia depends crucially on accurate determination of volaemic (hydration) status but this is notoriously challenging to measure in older people. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) provides a validated means of determining total body water (TBW), but its clinical utility in determining volaemic status in hyponatraemia has never been tested. This study assessed the utility of BIA in the clinical management of hyponatraemia in elderly patients with fragility fractures (EPFF), a group at high risk of hyponatraemia. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of consenting patients ≥65 years with fragility fractures (N=127). SETTING: University teaching hospital in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥665 years with fragility fractures with capacity to consent to participation. MEASUREMENTS: BIA and standard clinical examination procedures (jugular venous distension, skin turgor, mouth and axillary moistness, peripheral oedema, capillary refill time, overall impression) were performed daily throughout each participant's hospital stay. Volaemic status of hyponatraemia was determined by an expert panel using clinical data (history, examination, nursing observations and laboratory tests) blinded to TBW readings. Cohen's kappa was calculated to assess the level of agreement between the expert panel and both BIA and standard clinical examination measures in determining the volaemic state of hyponatraemia. RESULTS: 26/33 (79%) cases of hyponatraemia had sufficient clinical information to allow determination of volaemic status by BIA. There was moderate level of agreement between BIA and the expert panel, kappa 0.52 (p<.001). All kappa values for standard clinical assessments of volaemic status neared zero, indicating nil to slight agreement. CONCLUSION:BIA outperformed all aspects of the standard clinical examination in determining the volaemic status of hyponatraemic EPFF, suggesting it may be useful in clinical practice.
Authors: Ursula G Kyle; Ingvar Bosaeus; Antonio D De Lorenzo; Paul Deurenberg; Marinos Elia; José Manuel Gómez; Berit Lilienthal Heitmann; Luisa Kent-Smith; Jean-Claude Melchior; Matthias Pirlich; Hermann Scharfetter; Annemie M W J Schols; Claude Pichard Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Ewout J Hoorn; Fernando Rivadeneira; Joyce B J van Meurs; Gijsbertus Ziere; Bruno H Ch Stricker; Albert Hofman; Huibert A P Pols; Robert Zietse; André G Uitterlinden; M Carola Zillikens Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Joseph G Verbalis; Stephen R Goldsmith; Arthur Greenberg; Robert W Schrier; Richard H Sterns Journal: Am J Med Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Yoon-Ji Choi; Yun Hee Kim; Go Eun Bae; Joon Ho Yu; Seung Zhoo Yoon; Hee Won Kang; Kuen Su Lee; Jae-Hwan Kim; Yoon-Sook Lee Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2019-02-05 Impact factor: 1.671
Authors: R J M Navest; S Mandija; A Andreychenko; A J E Raaijmakers; J J W Lagendijk; C A T van den Berg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jorge Gabriel Ruiz-Sánchez; Martín Cuesta; Emilia Gómez-Hoyos; Jersy Cárdenas-Salas; Miguel Ángel Rubio-Herrera; Estefanía Martínez-González; Paz De Miguel Novoa; Jara Eloisa Ternero-Vega; Alfonso Luis Calle-Pascual; Isabelle Runkle Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 2.948