Cargando…

The comparative evaluation of patients’ body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: Bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method

BACKGROUND: Dry weight (DW) is an important concept related to patients undergoing hemodialysis. Conventional method seems to be time consuming and operator dependent. Bio impedance analysis (BIA) is a new and simple method reported to be an accurate way for estimating DW. In this study, we aimed to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alijanian, Neda, Naini, Afsoon Emami, Shahidi, Shahrzad, Liaghat, Lida, Samani, Rahil Riahi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23825990
_version_ 1782275320812929024
author Alijanian, Neda
Naini, Afsoon Emami
Shahidi, Shahrzad
Liaghat, Lida
Samani, Rahil Riahi
author_facet Alijanian, Neda
Naini, Afsoon Emami
Shahidi, Shahrzad
Liaghat, Lida
Samani, Rahil Riahi
author_sort Alijanian, Neda
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Dry weight (DW) is an important concept related to patients undergoing hemodialysis. Conventional method seems to be time consuming and operator dependent. Bio impedance analysis (BIA) is a new and simple method reported to be an accurate way for estimating DW. In this study, we aimed to compare the conventional estimation of DW with measuring DW by BIA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study involved 130 uremic patients, performed in Isfahan, Iran. DW was calculated by both conventional (CDW) and BIA (BIADW) method and results were compared based on different grouping factors including sex, underlying cause of renal failure (RF) (diabetic RF and non-diabetic RF), body mass index (BMI) status, and sessions of hemodialysis. We also calculated the difference between DWs of 2 methods (DW diff = CDW-BIADW). RESULTS: The mean of BIADW was significantly lower than CDW (57.20 ± 1.82 vs 59.36 ± 1.77, P value < 0.001). After grouping cases according to the underlying cause, BMI, sex, and dialysis sessions BIADW was significantly lower than CDW. CONCLUSION: Based on the combination of problems with CDW measurement which are corrected by BIA, and more clinical reliability of CDW, we concluded that although conventional method is a time-consuming and operator-dependent way to assess DW, DW could be estimated by combining both of these methods by finding the mathematic correlation between these methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3698649
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36986492013-07-03 The comparative evaluation of patients’ body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: Bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method Alijanian, Neda Naini, Afsoon Emami Shahidi, Shahrzad Liaghat, Lida Samani, Rahil Riahi J Res Med Sci Original Article BACKGROUND: Dry weight (DW) is an important concept related to patients undergoing hemodialysis. Conventional method seems to be time consuming and operator dependent. Bio impedance analysis (BIA) is a new and simple method reported to be an accurate way for estimating DW. In this study, we aimed to compare the conventional estimation of DW with measuring DW by BIA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study involved 130 uremic patients, performed in Isfahan, Iran. DW was calculated by both conventional (CDW) and BIA (BIADW) method and results were compared based on different grouping factors including sex, underlying cause of renal failure (RF) (diabetic RF and non-diabetic RF), body mass index (BMI) status, and sessions of hemodialysis. We also calculated the difference between DWs of 2 methods (DW diff = CDW-BIADW). RESULTS: The mean of BIADW was significantly lower than CDW (57.20 ± 1.82 vs 59.36 ± 1.77, P value < 0.001). After grouping cases according to the underlying cause, BMI, sex, and dialysis sessions BIADW was significantly lower than CDW. CONCLUSION: Based on the combination of problems with CDW measurement which are corrected by BIA, and more clinical reliability of CDW, we concluded that although conventional method is a time-consuming and operator-dependent way to assess DW, DW could be estimated by combining both of these methods by finding the mathematic correlation between these methods. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3698649/ /pubmed/23825990 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Research in Medical Sciences http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Alijanian, Neda
Naini, Afsoon Emami
Shahidi, Shahrzad
Liaghat, Lida
Samani, Rahil Riahi
The comparative evaluation of patients’ body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: Bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method
title The comparative evaluation of patients’ body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: Bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method
title_full The comparative evaluation of patients’ body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: Bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method
title_fullStr The comparative evaluation of patients’ body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: Bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method
title_full_unstemmed The comparative evaluation of patients’ body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: Bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method
title_short The comparative evaluation of patients’ body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: Bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method
title_sort comparative evaluation of patients’ body dry weight under hemodialysis using two methods: bioelectrical impedance analysis and conventional method
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23825990
work_keys_str_mv AT alijanianneda thecomparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod
AT nainiafsoonemami thecomparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod
AT shahidishahrzad thecomparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod
AT liaghatlida thecomparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod
AT samanirahilriahi thecomparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod
AT alijanianneda comparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod
AT nainiafsoonemami comparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod
AT shahidishahrzad comparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod
AT liaghatlida comparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod
AT samanirahilriahi comparativeevaluationofpatientsbodydryweightunderhemodialysisusingtwomethodsbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisandconventionalmethod