Significant differences between two commonly used bioimpedance methods in hemodialysis patients

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064165%3A_____%2F23%3A10465250" target="_blank" >RIV/00064165:_____/23:10465250 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11110/23:10465250

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=FNZmyyzQtX" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=FNZmyyzQtX</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5414/CN110818" target="_blank" >10.5414/CN110818</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Significant differences between two commonly used bioimpedance methods in hemodialysis patients

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Introduction: Bioimpedance methods are currently used abundantly in patients on chronic hemodialysis. In this population, their most important role is to determine the level of fluid volume, respectively its intra-and extracellular components. There are several bioimpedance devices on the market. In this project, we compared two frequently used devices: Body Composition Monitor and InBody S10. Materials and methods: We invited patients on chronic hemodialysis who are being treated in our institution. Inclusion criteria were: clinically stable condition, lack of artificial joints, pacemakers, or other implanted metal objects. The examinations were performed just prior to hemodialysis by both methods 5 minutes apart. Patients were examined in the supine position after 15 minutes at rest to stabilize body fluids. Studied parameters were those that are obtainable by both methods: total body water (TBW) (L), extracellular water (ECW) (L) and intracellular water (ICW) (kg), lean tissue mass (LTM) (L), and fat tissue mass (kg). Results: We included 14 participants (aged 64.4 +/- 18.0 years). Statistically and clinically significant differences between data from compared devices were observed for all variables. Inbody S10 overestimated TBW by 2.58 +/- 2.73 L and ICW by 4.56 +/- 2.27 L in comparison to BCM. The highest difference (27%) was measured for LTM and ICW 22%. LTM, fat, and ECW were higher when measured by BCM (LTM by 8.54 +/- 6.43 kg, p &lt; 0.001; fat by 3.41 +/- 4.22, p = 0.01; ECW by 2.01 +/- 0.89 L, p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion: The differences between tested devices were significant not only statistically, but also clinically. These two devices cannot be used interchangeably for dry weight setting of hemodialysis patients.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Significant differences between two commonly used bioimpedance methods in hemodialysis patients

Popis výsledku anglicky

Introduction: Bioimpedance methods are currently used abundantly in patients on chronic hemodialysis. In this population, their most important role is to determine the level of fluid volume, respectively its intra-and extracellular components. There are several bioimpedance devices on the market. In this project, we compared two frequently used devices: Body Composition Monitor and InBody S10. Materials and methods: We invited patients on chronic hemodialysis who are being treated in our institution. Inclusion criteria were: clinically stable condition, lack of artificial joints, pacemakers, or other implanted metal objects. The examinations were performed just prior to hemodialysis by both methods 5 minutes apart. Patients were examined in the supine position after 15 minutes at rest to stabilize body fluids. Studied parameters were those that are obtainable by both methods: total body water (TBW) (L), extracellular water (ECW) (L) and intracellular water (ICW) (kg), lean tissue mass (LTM) (L), and fat tissue mass (kg). Results: We included 14 participants (aged 64.4 +/- 18.0 years). Statistically and clinically significant differences between data from compared devices were observed for all variables. Inbody S10 overestimated TBW by 2.58 +/- 2.73 L and ICW by 4.56 +/- 2.27 L in comparison to BCM. The highest difference (27%) was measured for LTM and ICW 22%. LTM, fat, and ECW were higher when measured by BCM (LTM by 8.54 +/- 6.43 kg, p &lt; 0.001; fat by 3.41 +/- 4.22, p = 0.01; ECW by 2.01 +/- 0.89 L, p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion: The differences between tested devices were significant not only statistically, but also clinically. These two devices cannot be used interchangeably for dry weight setting of hemodialysis patients.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30217 - Urology and nephrology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Clinical Nephrology

ISSN

0301-0430

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

99

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

6

Stát vydavatele periodika

DE - Spolková republika Německo

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

283-289

Kód UT WoS článku

000971261900001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85160456345