Bioimpedance-Guided Fluid Management in Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

dc.authorid0000-0002-1641-8992
dc.contributor.authorOnofriescu, Mihai
dc.contributor.authorHogas, Simona
dc.contributor.authorVoroneanu, Luminita
dc.contributor.authorApetrii, Mugurel
dc.contributor.authorNistor, Ionut
dc.contributor.authorKanbay, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorCovic, Adrian C.
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-10T19:44:26Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.departmentİstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractBackground: Chronic subclinical volume overload happens very frequently in hemodialysis patients and is associated directly with hypertension, increased arterial stiffness, left ventricular hypertrophy, and ultimately higher mortality. Study Design: Randomized controlled parallel-group trial. Setting & Participants: 131 patients from one hemodialysis center, randomly assigned into 2 groups. Intervention: Dry weight prescription using results derived from repeated 3-month bioimpedance measurements to guide ultrafiltration for strict volume control (bioimpedance group; n=62) compared with clinical judgment without bioimpedance measures (clinical-methods group; n=69) for 2.5 years. Outcomes: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality over 2.5 years (the duration of the intervention). Secondary outcomes were change in relative arterial stiffness, fluid overload, and blood pressure (BP) over 2.5 years. Measurements: Bioimpedance measurements were performed using a Body Composition Monitor device. Pulse wave velocity analysis was performed at baseline, 2.5 years (end of intervention), and 3.5 years (end of study). Relative fluid overload and BP were assessed at 3-month intervals. Results: The unadjusted HR for all-cause death in the bioimpedance group (vs the clinical-methods group) was 0.100 (95% CI, 0.013-0.805; P=0.03). After 2.5 years, we found a greater decline in arterial stiffness, relative fluid overload, and systolic BP in the bioimpedance group than the clinical-methods group. Between-group differences in change from baseline to the end of intervention were -2.78 (95% CI, -3.75 to 1.80) m/s for pulse wave velocity (P < 0.001), -2.99% (95% CI, -5.00% to -0.89%) for relative fluid overload (P=0.05), and 22.43 (95% CI, -7.70 to 2.84) mm Hg for systolic BP (P=0.4). Limitations: Echocardiography was not performed as cardiovascular assessment and the caregivers were not masked to the intervention. Conclusions: Our study showed improvement in both surrogate and hard end points after strict volume control using bioimpedance to guide dry weight adjustment. These findings need to be confirmed in a larger trial. (C) 2014 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, grant IDEI-PCE [PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0637]
dc.description.sponsorshipPart of this study was funded by the University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, grant IDEI-PCE 2011, PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0637
dc.identifier.doi10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.01.420
dc.identifier.endpage118
dc.identifier.issn0272-6386
dc.identifier.issn1523-6838
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.pmid24583055
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84903278381
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage111
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.01.420
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/10931
dc.identifier.volume64
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000338938500018
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherW B Saunders Co-Elsevier Inc
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250302
dc.subjectBioimpedance
dc.subjecthemodialysis
dc.subjectpulse wave velocity
dc.subjectsurvival
dc.titleBioimpedance-Guided Fluid Management in Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar