|Nefrologia 2012;32(3):389-418 | Doi. 10.3265/Nefrologia.pre2012.Feb.11309|
|Analysis of concordance between the bioelectrical impedance vector analysis and the bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy in haemodialysis patients|
|Análisis de concordancia entre la bioimpedancia vectorial y la espectroscópica|
|Enviado a Revisar: 22 Dic. 2011 | Aceptado el: 19 Feb. 2012 | En Publicación: 14 May. 2012|
|José L. Teruel-Briones1, Milagros Fernández-Lucas1, Gloria Ruiz-Roso1, Humberto Sánchez2, Maite Rivera-Gorrin 1, Antonio Gomis-Couto1, Nuria Rodríguez-Mendiola1, Carlos Quereda1|
|1Servicio de Nefrología. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal. Madrid (Spain)|
2Servicio de Nefrología. Hospital de Monterrey. Monterrey (Mexico)
|Correspondencia para José L. Teruel-Briones, Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Carretera de Colmenar km 9,100, 28034, Madrid, Spain|
|Table 1 - Resistance and phase angle values|
|Table 2 - Relationship between hydration status according to the SF-BIVA monitor and overhydration according to the MF-BIS monitor|
|Table 3 - Pre-dialysis hydration status. Concordance between the definition criteria used by SF-BIVA and MF-BIS systems|
|Table 4 - Post-dialysis hydration status. Concordance between the definition criteria used by SF-BIVA and MF-BIS systems|
Bioelectrical impedance analysis allows us to quantify the different human body compartments and provides useful information for evaluating nutrition and hydration status. Simple, easy to use monitors with an accessible price range have led to the current widespread use of this technology in nephrology departments. This is evidenced by the large number of reports regarding bioelectrical impedance that were presented at the last three national conferences in this medical specialty.
Bioelectrical impedance monitors obtain electrical parameters from the human body (resistance, reactance, and phase angle), and calculate body mass and volume using predictive equations that take into account electrical data and other variables, such as weight, height, age, and sex. These equations vary between the different types of monitors. The majority only takes into account resistance, and on many occasions they are difficult to learn.1-6
Multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (MF-BIS) and single-frequency bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (SF-BIVA) are the two most commonly used bioelectrical impedance systems in Spain.7,8 Comparative studies reported that the two systems provide different results for the body compartments and methods are not interchangeable due to the high inter-method variability.6,9-12
The aim of our study was to determine whether inter-method variability is due to differences in the way monitors read bioelectrical variables, or due to the equations used by each system to calculate body mass and volume. Another objective was to test whether, despite the inter-method variability, the classification of a patient’s hydration status was consistent across the two different systems. This study was performed in patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease being treated with haemodialysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Ours was a cross-sectional study of 54 patients on periodic haemodialysis who underwent bioelectrical impedance analysis using both MF-BIS and SF-BIVA. The mean patient age was 69±14 years (range: 34-92 years); 36 patients were male and 18 were female. All patients were clinically stable, with no signs or symptoms of heart failure. Mean body mass index was 26.5±3.9 (range: 18.3-38.3; confidence interval: 25.5-27.6). The bioelectrical impedance analysis was performed before the haemodialysis session, with the patient lying in a supine position, placing electrodes at the wrist and ankle of the side of the body free from vascular accesses, following standard protocol. We first took measurements with the SF-BIVA monitor, which used a 50kHz frequency (ElectroFluidGraph [EFG] analyser, Akern SRL, Florence, Italy), and then with the MF-BIS device (BCM monitor, Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany), which took readings at 50 frequencies with a range of 5kHz-1000kHz. In 38 patients, we repeated the bioelectrical impedance analysis using SF-BIVA after completing the haemodialysis treatment. We used the same electrodes, which were left in place throughout the session.
The SF-BIVA monitor provides values for resistance, reactance, and phase angle at a 50kHz frequency. The MF-BIS monitor provides values for resistance and phase angle for each frequency used. In order to compare the bioelectrical data from the two monitors, we used the results from phase angle and resistance produced by the MF-BIS system at 50kHz. In order to analyse hydration status, we assigned a score (ordinal scale) from 1 to 7 to the results produced by the SF-BIVA monitor (from -3 to +3) along the major axis of the three tolerance ellipses (95%, 75%, and 50%) from the lower pole of greater hydration to the upper pole of less hydration, as proposed by Piccoli.1 With the MF-BIS monitor, hydration status was determined using the pre-dialysis hyper-hydration value (overhydration: OH) provided by the monitor. Post-dialysis OH was calculated by subtracting the ultrafiltration volume from the OH value (post-HD OH).
Hydration status was defined using the following criteria. With the MF-BIS monitor, we used two criteria to define pre-dialysis overhydration: an OH volume greater than 15% the extracellular water volume (ECW)13 and a total OH volume greater than 2.5 litres.14 Post-dialysis hydration status was considered normal when post-HD OH was between -1.1 litres and 1.1 litres; overhydration: OH>1.1 litres, and dehydration: OH<-1.1 litres.15 When using the SF-BIVA monitor, hydration was considered normal when the impedance vector on the hydration axis was within the 75% tolerance ellipse in pre- and post-dialysis measurements.16 Under this criteria, we defined pre-dialysis overhydration as an impedance vector in the pre-dialysis measurement below the 75% tolerance ellipse (on the ordinal hydration scale, this corresponds to values +3 and +2). In the post-dialysis assessment, the same criteria were used to define overhydration; normal hydration in the post-dialysis period was defined as a post-dialysis impedance vector within the 75% tolerance ellipse (values +1, 0, and -1 on the ordinal scale) and dehydration was defined as a post-dialysis impedance vector above the 75% tolerance ellipse (corresponding to values -2 and -3 on the ordinal scale).17
For our statistical analysis, we presented results in terms of mean ± standard deviation. Our data had a normal distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test), and so we only used parametric tests. The difference between SF-BIVA and MF-BIS values for each parameter was defined as the bias between the two systems. This same difference in absolute values expressed as a percentage of the arithmetic mean for both values (relative difference) allowed us to examine the variability between the two measurement methods. The correlation between the two different methods was measured using Pearson’s coefficients. For quantitative variables, we performed an intra-class correlation analysis,18 which varied between 0 (no agreement) and 1 (total agreement). For binary and ordinal variables, we used kappa index and weighted kappa index tests.19 For the kappa index, a level of agreement >0.40 was considered acceptable, and excellent at values >0.75. We compared means using Student’s t-tests and ANOVA, as necessary. A P-value <.05 was considered statistically significant.
Table 1 shows resistance and phase angle values produced by SF-BIVA and MF-BIS monitors at a frequency of 50kHz, and the body composition values obtained using the two methods. The values for resistance have a minimal variability, and the intra-class correlation coefficient suggests that the inter-method agreement is almost absolute. However, the values for phase angle were statistically different. Even so, the level of variability is acceptable from a clinical standpoint (11.5%), and the intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.92 indicates excellent inter-method agreement.
Of the different body composition variables measured by the two systems, only intracellular water volume (ICW) had an acceptable level of variability between the values for the two different types of monitors (13%); in all other variables, bias and variability are very high. Although the Pearson’s correlation coefficient suggests that there is a good correlation between the values obtained by the two systems, the intra-class correlation coefficient indicates that the level of agreement is mediocre.
Table 2 displays the MF-BIS parameters associated with hydration status (OH and the OH/ECW ratio) for the 7 different levels of the ordinal scale that measure hydration in the SF-BIVA monitor, showing good correlation between the two different methods.
The classification of patients according to pre- and post-dialysis hydration status is expressed in Table 3 and Table 4. In pre-dialysis patients, the kappa index for diagnosing overhydration was 0.81 if the diagnostic criterion of overhydration with the MF-BIS system was an OH/ECW>0.15 (excellent agreement) and 0.71 if the diagnostic criterion was an OH>2.5 (acceptable agreement). In post-dialysis measurements, the mean weighted kappa index was 0.64 (acceptable agreement).
The different manufacturers of bioelectrical impedance monitors assure us that the procedures they use to calculate body mass and volume are validated against reference methods, both in healthy subjects and patients suffering a wide range of pathologies, but the results obtained with the different bioelectrical impedance systems demonstrate a substantial inter-method variability.6,9-12 The aim of our study was to determine whether this inter-method variability was due to different results obtained in the measurement of bioelectrical parameters, or due to the equations used by each system to quantify body compartments.
The measurements of resistance and phase angle provided by SF-BIVA and MF-BIS monitors at a frequency of 50kHz have a high level of agreement. The mean variability for resistance was only 1.3%, similar to the intra-individual variability rate.3,16 The intra-class correlation coefficient (0.99) suggests that the agreement between the two systems is virtually absolute. The measurements of phase angle were different from a statistical point of view, but the mean variability (11.5%) could be negligible from a clinical standpoint, and the intra-class correlation coefficient (0.92) indicates a high level of agreement. We can conclude that the two monitor systems make very similar measurements of bioelectrical parameters at a frequency of 50kHz.
The measurements for total body volume, extracellular water, intracellular water, fat mass, and body cell mass, showed high variability and bias. As in other studies performed using these same monitors,10,11 we observed that the SF-BIVA system yields higher values than the MF-BIS system for all compartments analysed, except for fat mass. The best correlation between the two systems occurred in ICW (mean bias: 2.2 litres; mean variability: 13%; intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.80), which is acceptable. For all other compartments, the bias and variability were not negligible, and the intra-class correlation coefficient indicates that only a mediocre equivalence exists between the two systems. The Pearson’s coefficient demonstrated a close correlation between the results produced by the two systems, but this is not a valid test for a concordance analysis.18-20 The majority of equations that determine body volume and mass only use resistance as the bioelectrical parameter.1,3,5 Since the level of agreement in the readout for resistance at a frequency of 50kHz is virtually absolute, we must assume that the inter-method variability observed is attributable to the different bioelectrical models and equations used by each bioelectrical impedance device.
In addition to quantifying body mass and volume, the different bioelectrical impedance systems utilise certain criteria to classify patients based on hydration status. For pre-dialysis values, the MF-BIS system uses the parameter of OH, expressed in litres,14 or in a percentage of ECW13;and for post-dialysis values, the estimated post-dialysis OH in litres.15 The SF-BIVA system defines pre- and post-dialysis hydration status by applying an ordinal scale to tolerance elipses.1,17 Upon analysing the equivalence of the two systems for classifying patients according to hydration status, we observed that the level of agreement was good both for defining pre-dialysis overhydration status and post-dialysis normal, over-, and dehydration. Although the results for the different body water compartments obtained from the two systems are not interchangeable, the criteria used to define hydration status had a very high level of correlation in classifying patients.
Phase angle is a bioelectrical parameter associated with nutrition, and has a prognostic value in patients with renal failure.21-24 When evaluating this parameter, we must keep in mind that phase angle varies with hydration status,25,26 and increases following haemodialysis sessions.16,27 Our study suggests that in the pre-dialysis period, the two monitor systems have an acceptable level of agreement, and that phase angle obtained by either device can have the same significance when analysing patient prognosis or nutrition status.
We conclude that the SF-BIVA and MF-BIS monitor systems produce comparable results for resistance and phase angle at a frequency of 50kHz. The measurement of body compartments does have a high inter-method variability that is probably due to the equations used. However, the different criteria used for defining hydration status by each device are comparable and classify patients quite consistently.
The choice of which bioelectrical impedance system to use in patients on dialysis has caused considerable controversy. With our results, we cannot conclusively say which one is more advisable. If phase angle and ICW are used as nutritional parameters and hydration status is measured following our method, the results from the two different systems are comparable, and in our opinion, both procedures are clinically useful.
We would like to thank Andrés Sánchez Iglesias, physics professor, for assistance in comprehending the functioning of bioelectrical impedance analysis.
Conflicts of interest
The authors affirm that they have no conflicts of interest related to the content of this article.
1. Piccoli A, Nescolarde LD, Rosell J. Análisis convencional y vectorial de bioimpedancia en la práctica clínica. Nefrología 2002;XXII:228-38.[Pubmed]
2. Cooper BA, Aslani A, Ryan M, Zhu FYP, Ibels LlS, Allen BJ, et al. Comparing different methods of assessing body omposition in end-stage renal failure. Kidney Int 2000;58:408-16.[Pubmed]
3. Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD, Deurenberg P, Elia M, Gómez JM, et al., Composition of the ESPEN Working Group. Bioelectrical impedance analysis-part I: review of principles and methods. Clin Nutr 2004;23:1226-43.[Pubmed]
4. Kaysen GA, Zhu F, Sarkar S, Heymsfield SB, Wong J, Kaitwatcharachai Ch, et al. Estimation of total-body and limb muscle mass in hemodialysis patients by using multifrequency bioimpedance spectroscopy. Am J Clin Nutr 2005;82:988-95[Pubmed]
5. Moissl UM, Wabel P, Chamney PW, Bosaeus I, Levin NW, Bosy-Westphal A, et al. Body fluid volume determination via body composition spectroscopy in health and disease. Physiol Meas 2006;27:921-33.[Pubmed]
6. Jaffrin MY, Morel H. Body fluid volumes measurements by impedance: A review of bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) and bioimpedance analysis (BIA) methods. Med Eng Phys 2008;30:1257-69.[Pubmed]
7. López-Gómez JM. Evolución y aplicaciones de la bioimpedancia en el manejo de la enfermedad renal crónica. Nefrologia 2011;31:630-4.[Pubmed]
8. Cigarrán Guldrís S. Aplicaciones futuras de la bioimpedancia vectorial (BIVA) en nefrología. Nefrologia 2011;31:635-43.[Pubmed]
9. Donadio C, Consani C, Ardini M, Bernabini G, Caprio F, Grassi G, et al. Estimate of body water compartments and of body composition in maintenance hemodialysis patients: Comparison of single and multifrequency bioimpedance analysis. J Ren Nutr 2005;15:332-44.[Pubmed]
10. Arias M, Massó E, Fontseré N, Vera M, Durán C, Martina MN, et al. ¿Son comparables los métodos de bioimpedanciometría utilizados en hemodiálisis en la actualidad? Nefrologia 2010;30(Suppl 1):88 (abstract).
11. Roca Meroño S, Alarcón Jiménez RM, García Hernández MA, Jimeno Griñó C, Álvarez Fernández GM, Navarro Parreño MJ, et al. Medición del estado de hidratación del paciente en hemodiálisis mediante bioimpedancia eléctrica monofrecuencia y multifrecuencia. Nefrologia 2010;30(Suppl 1):91 (abstract).
12. Dou Y, Liu L, Cheng X, Cao L, Zuo L. Comparison of bioimpedance methods for estimating total body water and intracellular water changes during hemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011;26:3319-24.[Pubmed]
13. Wizemann V, Wabel P, Chamney P, Zaluska W, Moissl U, Rode C, et al. The mortality risk of overhidratation in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009;24:1574-9.[Pubmed]
14. Wabel P, Chamney P, Moissl U, Jirka T. Importance of whole-body bioimpedance spectroscopy for the management of fluid balance. Blood Purif 2009;27:75-80.[Pubmed]
15. Passauer J, Petrov H, Schleser A, Leicht J, Pucalka K. Evaluation of clinical dry weight assessment in haemodialysis patients using bioimpedance spectroscopy: a cross-sectional study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:545-51.[Pubmed]
16. Piccoli A, for the Italian HD-BIA Study Group: Identification of operational clues to dry weight prescription in hemodialysis using bioimpedance vector analysis. Kidney Int 1998;53:1036-43.[Pubmed]
17. Guida B, De Nicola L, Trio R, Pecoraro P, Iodice C, Memoli B. Comparison of vector and conventional bioelectrical impedance analysis in the optimal dry weight prescription in hemodialysis. Am J Nephrol 2000;20:311-8.[Pubmed]
18. Prieto L, Lamarca R, Casado A. La evaluación de la fiabilidad en las observaciones clínicas: el coeficiente de correlación intraclase. Med Clin (Barc) 1998;110:142-5.[Pubmed]
19. Hernández Aguado I, Porta Serra M, Miralles M, García Benavides F, Bolumar F. La cuantificación de la variabilidad en las observaciones clínicas. Med Clin (Barc) 1990;95:424-9.[Pubmed]
20. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;i:307-10.[Pubmed]
21. Fiedler R, Jehle PM, Osten B, Dorligschaw O, Girndt M. Clinical nutrition scores are superior for the prognosis of haemodialysis patients compared to lab markers and bioelectrical impedance. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009;24:3812-7.[Pubmed]
22. Segall L, Mardare NG, Ungureanu S, Busuioc M, Nistor I, Enache R, et al. Nutritional status evaluation and survival in haemodialysis patients in one centre from Romania. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2009;24:2536-40.[Pubmed]
23. Caravaca F, Martínez del Viejo C, Villa J, Martínez Gallardo R, Ferreira F. Estimación del estado de hidratación mediante bioimpedancia espectroscópica multifrecuencia en la enfermedad renal crónica avanzada. Nefrologia 2011;31:537-44.[Pubmed]
24. Abad S, Sotomayor G, Vega A, Pérez de José A, Verdalles U, Jofré R, et al. El ángulo de fase de la impedancia elécrica es un predictor de supervivencia a largo plazo en pacientes en diálisis. Nefrologia 2011;31:670-6.[Pubmed]
25. Piccoli A, for the Italian CAPD-BIA Study Group. Bioelectric impedance vector distribution in peritoneal dialysis patients with different hydratation status. Kidney Int 2004;65:1050-63.[Pubmed]
26. Valdés Sotomayor J, Chust Álvarez M, Navarro Martínez V, Morate Rostra L, Escuin Fernández R, Castillo Garrote A, et al. El estado nutricional según bioimpedancia varía dependiendo del estado de hidratación. Nefrologia 2010;30(Suppl 1):97 (abstract).
27. Giorgi M, González Lázaro G, Cigarrán S, Lorenzo A, Salanova L, Sánchez Tomero JA, et al. Diferencias en la composición corporal pre y post HD medidas por bioimpedancia vectorial y su correlación con parámetros bioquímicos y K corporal total. Nefrología 2009;29 (Suppl 2):90 (abstract).