RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Chronic fluid overload is common in maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients and is associated with severe cardiovascular complications, such as arterial hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, congestive heart failure, and arrhythmia. Therefore, a crucial target of HD is to achieve the so-called dry weight; however, the best way to assess fluid status and dry weight is still unclear. Dry weight is currently determined in most dialysis units on a clinical basis, and it is commonly defined as the lowest body weight a patient can tolerate without developing intra-dialytic or inter-dialytic hypotension or other symptoms of dehydration. One of the most promising methods that have emerged in recent years is bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which estimates body composition, including hydration status, by measuring the body's resistance and reactance to electrical current. Our objective was to study the effect BIA-guided versus clinical-guided ultrafiltration on various cardiovascular disease risk factors and markers in HD patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 135 HD patients from a single center in a prospective study, aiming to compare the long-term (12 months) effect of BIA-based versus clinical-based assessment of dry weight on blood pressure (BP), pulse wave velocity (PWV), and serum N-terminal fragment of B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The body composition was measured using the portable whole-body multifrequency BIA device, Body Composition Monitor-BCM(®) (Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany). RESULTS: In the "clinical" group there were no changes in BP, body mass index (BMI), and body fluids. The PWV increased from 7.9 ± 2.5 to 9.2 ± 3.6 m/s (P = 0.002), whereas serum NT-proBNP decreased from 5,238 to 3,883 pg/ml (P = 0.05). In the "BIA" group, BMI and body volumes also did not change; however, there was a significant decrease in both systolic BP, from 144.6 ± 14.7 to 135.3 ± 17.8 mmHg (P < 0.001), and diastolic BP, from 79.5 ± 9.7 to 73.2 ± 11.1 mmHg (P < 0.001). In this group, PWV also decreased from 8.2 ± 2.3 to 6.9 ± 2.3 m/s (P = 0.001) and NT-proBNP decreased from 7,552 to 4,561 pg/ml (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: BIA is not inferior and possibly even better than clinical criteria for assessing dry weight and guiding ultrafiltration in HD patients.
Asunto(s)
Presión Sanguínea/fisiología , Agua Corporal/fisiología , Fallo Renal Crónico/terapia , Diálisis Renal/métodos , Ultrafiltración , Rigidez Vascular/fisiología , Índice de Masa Corporal , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/etiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/fisiopatología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , Impedancia Eléctrica , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Fallo Renal Crónico/sangre , Fallo Renal Crónico/fisiopatología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Péptido Natriurético Encefálico/sangre , Fragmentos de Péptidos/sangre , Pronóstico , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Chronic volume overload is very frequent in hemodialysis (HD) patients and is directly associated with hypertension, increased arterial stiffness, left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), heart failure and ultimately with higher mortality and morbidity. One major issue is that presently there are very few comparative studies of the various methods (clinical, bioimpedance, inferior cava vein diameter (ICV) and Brain Natriuretic Peptide (NT-proBNP)) for volume status evaluation and their correlation with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In 160 patients treated by chronic HD in our center, euvolemic according to clinical assessment, we performed evaluation of volume status through bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), ICV and NT-proBNP, as well as echocardiography, to estimate the left ventricle structure and function. RESULTS: Despite appearing clinically euvolemic, severe fluid overload, as defined by a relative tissue hydration (RTH)--i.e. fluid overload over extracellular water ratio (FO/ECW)--above 15% was found in 25.6% of patients. Four categories of patients were considered according to pre-HD BP and BIS values. Forty-five percent of patients (group A) had a reasonable control of BP and volume (SBP < 150 mmHg and RTH < 15%), 29.3% (group B) were classified as hypertensive (SBP > 150 mmHg and RTH < 15%), 16.7% (group C) had high blood pressure and marked volume expansion, (SBP > 150 mmHg and RTH > 15%), while 9% (group D) had SBP < 150 mmHg despite RTH > 15%. Assuming that BIS is the most accurate and validated method to assess hydration status, we calculated the positive predictive value for ICV-based evaluation--18%, with a sensitivity of 67% and an important proportion of false negative cases (45%). NT-proBNP was even less accurate: PPV of only 26%, with a sensitivity of 60% and a specificity of only 45% and an extremely high proportion of false positive cases (73%). Group A patients had the best cardio-vascular profile: lowest LV mass and NT-proBNP levels. CONCLUSION: Using multi-frequency body impedance spectroscopy, we found a large group of hypertensive and/or fluid-overloaded patients despite apparently being at "dry weight" on clinical evaluation and a marked discrepancy between clinical appearance and fluid status. Of the 4 different methods, assuming BCM "gold standard", there were major disagreements and discrepancies between the other three methodologies. BCM is a valuable and simple bed-side tool for the correct management of BP and risk stratification in HD patients as it allows for excellent discriminators of more abnormal cardiac and vascular profiles.