Publication:
Value of bioimpedance analysis estimated "dry weight" in maintenance dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.coauthorCovic, Adrian
dc.contributor.coauthorCiumanghel, Adi-Ionut
dc.contributor.coauthorSiriopol, Dimitrie
dc.contributor.coauthorDumea, Raluca
dc.contributor.coauthorGavrilovici, Cristina
dc.contributor.coauthorNistor, Ionut
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.kuauthorKanbay, Mehmet
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSCHOOL OF MEDICINE
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T23:15:05Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractBackground Volume overload is a common complication in patients with end-stage kidney disease who undergo maintenance dialysis therapy and associated with hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy and mortality in this population. Although bioimpedance analysis (BIA), an objective method to assess overhydration, is associated with poor outcomes in observational studies, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) the results were conflicting. We have examined the role of BIA for assessing the "dry weight" and fluid status in order to improve fluid overload in comparison with a control or clinical-based prescription in patients with ESKD receiving haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Methods All RCTs and quasi-RCTs in which BIA was used to improve fluid overload and assess the effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, systolic blood pressure and volume control and arterial stiffness were included. Results Seven RCTs with 1312 patients could be included in this review. In low-to-medium quality of the evidence, the use of BIA did not reduce all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39) and had small to no effect on body change, but it improved systolic blood pressure control (mean difference (MD) -2.73 mmHg, 95% CI -5.00 to -0.46 mmHg) and reduce overhydration, as measured by BIA, with 0.43 L [(MD), 95% CI 0.71-0.15 L]. Conclusion In ESKD patients, BIA-based interventions for correction of overhydration have little to no effect on all-cause mortality, whereas BIA improved systolic blood pressure control. Our results should be interpreted with caution as the size and power of the included studies are low. Further studies, larger or with a longer follow-up period, should be performed to better describe the effect of BIA-based strategies on survival.
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.issue12
dc.description.openaccessNO
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.volume49
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11255-017-1698-4
dc.identifier.eissn1573-2584
dc.identifier.issn0301-1623
dc.identifier.quartileQ3
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85030179205
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1698-4
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/10266
dc.identifier.wos414377800020
dc.keywordsVolume control
dc.keywordsBioimpedance analysis
dc.keywordsHaemodialysis
dc.keywordsCardiovascular disease
dc.keywordsMortality
dc.keywordsBlood pressure
dc.keywordsHypertension
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSpringer
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Urology and Nephrology
dc.subjectUrology
dc.subjectNephrology
dc.titleValue of bioimpedance analysis estimated "dry weight" in maintenance dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
dc.typeReview
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.kuauthorKanbay, Mehmet
local.publication.orgunit1SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
local.publication.orgunit2School of Medicine
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e

Files