Concordance between bio-impedance analysis and clinical score in fluid-status assessment of maintenance haemodialysis patients: A single centre experience.

Abstract

Background: The burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is rising rapidly globally. Fluid overload (FO), an independent predictor of mortality in CKD, should be accurately assessed to guide estimation of the volume of fluid to be removed during haemodialysis (HD). Clinical score (CS) and bio-impedance analysis (BIA) have been utilized in assessment of FO and BIA has demonstrated reproducibility and accuracy in determination of fluid status in patients on HD. There is need to determine the performance of locally-developed CSs in fluid status assessment when evaluated against BIA.

Aim: To assess the hydration status of patients on maintenance HD using BIA and a CS, as well as to evaluate the performance of that CS against BIA in fluid status assessment.

Methods: This was a single-centre, hospital-based cross-sectional study which recruited adult patients with CKD who were on maintenance HD at Kenyatta National Hospital. The patients were aged 18 years and above and had been on maintenance HD for at least 3 mo. Those with pacemakers, metallic implants, or bilateral limbs amputations were excluded. Data on the patients' clinical history, physical examination, and chest radiograph findings were collected. BIA was performed on each of the study participants using the Quantum^® II bio-impedance analyser manufactured by RJL Systems together with the BC 4^® software. In evaluating the performance of the CS, BIA was considered as the gold standard test. A 2-by-2 table of the participants' fluid status at each of the CS values obtained compared to their paired BIA results was constructed (either ++, +-, -- or -+ for FO using the CS and BIA, respectively). The results from this 2-by-2 table were used to compute the sensitivity and specificity of the CS at the various reference points and subsequently plot a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve that was used to determine the best cut-off point. Those above and below the best CS cut-off point as determined by the ROC were classified as being positive and negative for FO, respectively. The proportions of participants diagnosed with FO by the CS and BIA, respectively, were computed and summarized in a 2-by-2 contingency table for comparison. McNemar's chi-squared test was used to assess any statistically significant difference in proportions of patients diagnosed as having FO by CS and BIA. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess whether the variables for the duration of dialysis, the number of missed dialysis sessions, advisement by health care professional on fluid or salt intake, actual fluid intake, the number of anti-hypertensives used, or body mass index were associated with a patient's odds of having FO as diagnosed by BIA.

Results: From 100 patients on maintenance HD screened for eligibility, 80 were recruited into this study. Seventy-one (88.75%) patients were fluid overloaded when evaluated using BIA with mean extracellular volume of 3.02 ± 1.79 L as opposed to the forty-seven (58.25%) patients who had FO when evaluated using the CS. The difference was significant, with a P value of < 0.0001 (95% confidence interval: 0.1758-0.4242). Using CS, values above 4 were indicative of FO while values less than or equal to 4 denoted the best cut-off for no FO. The sensitivity and specificity for the CS were 63% and 78% respectively. None of the factors evaluated for association with FO showed statistical significance on the multivariable logistic regression model.

Conclusion: FO is very prevalent in patients on chronic HD at the Kenyatta National Hospital. CS detects FO less frequently when compared with BIA. The sensitivity and specificity for the CS were 63% and 78% respectively. None of the factors evaluated for association with FO showed statistical significance on the multivariable logistic regression model.