Bioelectrical impedance vector values in a Spanish healthy newborn population for nutritional assessment

Abstract

Introduction Vector bioimpedance analysis (BIVA) can be very useful for the evaluation of body composition, hydration, and nutritional status in infants and newborns. The objective of this study was to determine the impedance vector distribution for a group of healthy newborn Spanish children. Methods This was a cross‐sectional, descriptive study conducted with 154 healthy, Spanish newborns (gestational age: 37‐41 weeks) aged 24 to 72 hours (79 males, 75 females). Weight, height, and cephalic‐circumference were determined. Resistance and reactance were measured with a single‐frequency impedance analyzer at 50 kHz (tetrapolar analysis). The newborns' specific 95% confidence intervals of the mean vectors and the 95%, 75%, and 50% tolerance intervals for the individual vector measurements were plotted using R and Xc components standardized by the subjects' lengths. The mean impedance vectors were compared with Hotelling's‐T2 test for vector analysis (significance level: P < .05). Results The newborns exhibited gender‐related differences in the mean impedance vector (mean [SD] R/H: 833.6 [97.5] Ohm/m in males vs 918.2 [107.7] Ohm/m in females; mean [SD] Xc/H: 91.3 [34.7] Ohm/m in males vs 95.6 [23.2] Ohm/m in females). No statistically significant differences in the mean impedance vectors were observed according to days of life. Lower values of resistance and slightly higher reactance values were observed in the healthy Spanish newborns compared to Italian newborns. Conclusions New tolerance ellipses were constructed for healthy Spanish newborns. These data allow detecting alterations in the hydration status and cell mass in term newborns in the first 3 days of life.

The clinical use of longitudinal bio-electrical impedance vector analysis in assessing stabilization of children with severe acute malnutrition

“…These include the works of Piccoli, A. and his team in normal adults or with conditions associated with or without edema [41e43]; as well as in normal infants and children [36,37]. We also included other studies looking at groups of healthy infants [44], and non-European children that are either healthy, with severe wasting or with edematous SAM [19,32,45,46]. Our data aligns well with these reported findings.…”

“…Perhaps, our younger population with small body size and severe conditions compound the above listed factors that influence BI measures. For example, high variance of PA and BI variables has been discussed in ill malnourished adults with cancer [58], and in healthy infants [44,57]. Also, as reviewed in Rinaldi, S. et al [59], the use of PA has not been validated for clinical use in diseased adults with no established guidelines or cut-offs for malnutrition screening or assessment.…”

Protein energy-wasting associated with nephrotic syndrome – the comparison of metabolic pattern in severe nephrosis to different stages of chronic kidney disease

“…However, using the same technique and repeated measurements to follow up the patients status seems to be worth doing. Over the last decade, various methods based on bioimpedance techniques have been used to assess the nutritional status in patients with CKD, inflammatory bowel disease, neurological diseases or general population from new-borns to elderly [13][14][15][16][17]. However, data regarding the usage of bioelectrical impedance in nephrotic syndrome is limited.…”

Evaluation of the bioimpedance technique in newborns with a focus on electrode positioning: A prospective, randomized, crossover study

“…In the literature, distances between electrodes ranging from 2 to 6 cm have been suggested for the pediatric population, although a consensus has not been reached. In some published studies, the distance used between electrodes is not reported, which complicates comparisons of published results 7–11 . The current study did not aim to define the ideal locations of electrodes but instead sought to prove that electrode positioning affects R results.…”

“…In some published studies, the distance used between electrodes is not reported, which complicates comparisons of published results. [7][8][9][10][11] The current study did not aim to define the ideal locations of electrodes but instead sought to prove that electrode positioning affects R results. To obtain reliable results, allowing comparisons between different studies, the technique must be standardized, especially in preterm infants.…”