BACKGROUND: Fluid overload (FO) in critically ill patients is associated with increased adverse events. This study aims to compare different bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) parameters that demonstrate FO and their association with 30-day mortality in critical patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Five components of the BIA were obtained by multifrequency device-total body water (TBW), extracellular water (ECW), intracellular water (ICW), resistance (R), and reactance (Xc)-to calculate parameters (impedance vectors, impedance ratio, and the ratios of ECW to TBW, ECW to ICW, ECW to body surface area, TBW to height2 , ICW to height2 , Xc to height, and R to height) that have been used for the detection of FO. A concordance analysis (κ) was performed comparing every parameter with each other. Furthermore, different regression models (Cox regression) were created associating the FO for each parameter with 30-day mortality, adjusted for age, body mass index, sex, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and serum albumin level. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were included in the study. Only FO by impedance vector analysis (relative risk [RR] = 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-27.9; P = .01), impedance ratio (RR = 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-7.1; P = .04), and R (RR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.5; P = .02) increased the probability of 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Different parameters that determine FO by BIA were associated with the mortality of patients admitted to the ED, but the impedance vector analysis was superior to any other parameter of the BIA.
BACKGROUND: Fluid overload (FO) in critically illpatients is associated with increased adverse events. This study aims to compare different bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) parameters that demonstrate FO and their association with 30-day mortality in critical patients admitted to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Five components of the BIA were obtained by multifrequency device-total body water (TBW), extracellular water (ECW), intracellular water (ICW), resistance (R), and reactance (Xc)-to calculate parameters (impedance vectors, impedance ratio, and the ratios of ECW to TBW, ECW to ICW, ECW to body surface area, TBW to height2 , ICW to height2 , Xc to height, and R to height) that have been used for the detection of FO. A concordance analysis (κ) was performed comparing every parameter with each other. Furthermore, different regression models (Cox regression) were created associating the FO for each parameter with 30-day mortality, adjusted for age, body mass index, sex, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and serum albumin level. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were included in the study. Only FO by impedance vector analysis (relative risk [RR] = 6.4; 95% CI, 1.5-27.9; P = .01), impedance ratio (RR = 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1-7.1; P = .04), and R (RR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.5; P = .02) increased the probability of 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Different parameters that determine FO by BIA were associated with the mortality of patients admitted to the ED, but the impedance vector analysis was superior to any other parameter of the BIA.