TY - JOUR
T1 - Identification of fluid overload in elderly patients with chronic kidney disease using bioimpedance techniques
AU - Hussein, Usama
AU - Cimini, Monica
AU - Handelman, Garry J.
AU - Raimann, Jochen G.
AU - Liu, Li
AU - Abbas, Samer R.
AU - Kotanko, Peter
AU - Levin, Nathan W.
AU - Finkelstein, Fredric O.
AU - Zhu, Fansan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 the American Physiological Society.
PY - 2022/7
Y1 - 2022/7
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - CKD
KW - blood pressure
KW - calf normalized resistivity
KW - fluid overload
KW - whole body bioimpedance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134427030&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1152/japplphysiol.00645.2021
DO - 10.1152/japplphysiol.00645.2021
M3 - Article
C2 - 35652832
AN - SCOPUS:85134427030
SN - 8750-7587
VL - 133
SP - 205
EP - 213
JO - Journal of Applied Physiology
JF - Journal of Applied Physiology
IS - 1
ER -