Significant differences between two commonly used bioimpedance methods in hemodialysis patients.

Abstract

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 < 0.001; fat by 3.41 ± 4.22, p = 0.01; ECW by 2.01 ± 0.89 L, p < 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.