Comparison of bioimpedance spectroscopy and the Watson formula for measuring body volume in patients on peritoneal dialysis

Fernández, Gonzalo Martínez; Cerrato, Agustín Ortega; Iniesta, Lourdes de la Vara; Galera, Eva Oliver; Roldán, Carmen Gómez; Martínez, Juan Pérez

doi:10.1016/j.nefroe.2016.02.002

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When both devices were compared (KtID/V BCM -KtID/V Akern ) or V was obtained by the Watson formula and compared with the V from BCM, the estimation error remained constant with a similar LCC, and the bias was systematic. Martinez et al also found significant differences in the V of PD Unit patients when obtained by the Watson formula or by BIS and associated these differences with the presence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypoalbuminemia, obesity, malnutrition, inflammation, an ECW/ICW ratio ≥ 1, and the absence of residual diuresis (32). Finally, when the dialysis dose estimated by Kt/Vsp or eKt/V and that obtained using V from the two bioimpedance devices was compared, large imprecision was found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Are Currently Used Bioimpedance Methods in Hemodialysis Comparable for Calculating Dialysis Dose?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioelectrical impedance analysis has increasingly been incorporated into hemodialysis units (HD) as a useful, noninvasive technique for evaluating overall fluid status. The aims of this study were to verify whether the information obtained from two different bioelectrical impedance analysis methods (spectroscopy bioimpedance [BCM] and single‐frequency bioelectric impedance vector analysis [SF‐BIVA]) was comparable for analyzing fluid status, and to determine their impact when used to calculate dialysis dose. This observational cross‐sectional study included 78 HD patients who underwent one measurement with BCM and one with SF‐BIVA in the same dialysis session. For calculating the dialysis dose, total body water or urea distribution volume (V) was calculated by the Watson formula and compared with the V obtained from the two devices. The difference in V between the two devices was 5.4 L (P < 0.001). Given the existent correlation between VBCM and VSF‐BIVA, we were able to apply a formula (corrected V = VSF‐BIVA = 1.04 × VBCM + 4.85, r = 0.93), allowing comparison of the two bioimpedance methods. The mean dialysis dose for BCM device (KtID/VBCM) was 2.49 ± 0.85, much higher than KtID/VSF‐BIVA (2.06 ± 0.72) mainly due to the V obtained with the different devices, with KtID/VWatson being 2.03 ± 0.67. The results on volume distribution showed an acceptable correlation but the devices were not comparable due to intermethod differences observed. Dialysis centers using SF‐BIVA will obtain much lower dialysis dose, but by applying our formula, the Kt/V would resemble that obtained by the BCM device.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Are Currently Used Bioimpedance Methods in Hemodialysis Comparable for Calculating Dialysis Dose?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of the Watson formula and bioimpedance spectroscopy for measuring body volume and calculating kt/V in patients with peritoneal dialysis

Liu,

Feng,

Zhang

et al. 2024

Renal Failure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Ascertaining the total body water (V), usually obtained by the Watson formula or bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), is crucial for the calculation of Kt/V in patients with peritoneal dialysis (PD). The aim of our study was to compare two different methods of determining V and explore which one is suitable for clinical application. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study. V was determined using the Watson formula (Vwat) and BIS (Vbis). The differences between Vbis and Vwat and between Kt/Vbis and Kt/Vwat were assessed. The patients were allocated to different groups according to the Kt/Vwat and Kt/Vbis values. Clinical parameters were compared between these groups to investigate which method of obtaining the Kt/V value was more suitable. Results: 150 patients on PD were included. Vwat was significantly higher than Vbis, apart from in female patients with volume overload. Consequently, weekly Kt/Vwat was lower than Kt/Vbis in these patients. A significant negative correlation between mean Vwat-Vbis and overhydration values was also found. Moreover, through uniform manifold approximation and projection analysis, a clustering tendency between patients in the adequate group with both Kt/Vwat and Kt/Vbis > =1.7 and patients in the inconsistent group with Kt/Vwat <1.7 and Kt/Vbis > =1.7 was identified, suggesting that their clinical features were similar. Conclusion There were significant differences between Vwat and Vbis and between Kt/Vwat and Kt/Vbis. Kt/Vwat may underestimate small-solute dialysis adequacy in most cases. Kt/Vbis instead of Kt/Vwat could be accounted for in creating individualized dialysis prescriptions if the patient has no obvious clinical symptoms.

show abstract

Comparison of bioimpedance spectroscopy and the Watson formula for measuring body volume in patients on peritoneal dialysis

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

Are Currently Used Bioimpedance Methods in Hemodialysis Comparable for Calculating Dialysis Dose?

Are Currently Used Bioimpedance Methods in Hemodialysis Comparable for Calculating Dialysis Dose?

Comparison of the Watson formula and bioimpedance spectroscopy for measuring body volume and calculating kt/V in patients with peritoneal dialysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About