•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Introduction. In daily clinical practice, fluid status in Hemodialysis (HD) patients is well correlated with dry weight calculation. Dry weight calculation is commonly practiced by clinical observation, which is not accurate. Because of these, few methods has been suggested to calculate the dry weight non-invasively. Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) is widely available in overseas but not readily available in all dialysis center in Indonesia, while inferior vena cava diameter is a relatively inexpensive method, and readily available in all dialysis center because it can be performed with ultrasonography (USG) instrument. Methods. A cross-sectional study was performed in a group of regular HD patients at the Haemodialysis Unit, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital in Jakarta, June 2011. Dry weight was evaluated with bioelectrical impedance analysis, while the inferior vena cava collapsibility index was evaluated using USG performed by two different observer. Results. We have recruited 30 HD patients, in which 18 (60%) of the subjects were overload according to the bioelectrical impedance analysis, while 21 (70%) were overload according to the inferior vena cava collapsibility index. The mean age of the subjects is 52 years old with the minimum 24 and maximum 69 years. In this research, we found negative correlation (r = -0.957, P<0.0001) between inferior vena cava colapsibility index and BIA. We found a 94.4% sensitivity and 66.7% specificity for inferior vena cava colapsibility index. Both of USG operators showed a κ coefficient value of 0.92, which reflected a very strong agreement between them. Conclusions. The inferior vena cava colapsibility index have a good role as a screening method in determining dry weight in dialysis patients

References

1. Locatelli F, Marcelli D, Conte F, et al. Cardiovascular disease in chronic renal failure: the challenge continues. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2000;15(Suppl 5):69-80. 2. Agarwal R. Hypervolemia is associated with increased mortality among hemodialysis patients. Hypertension. 2010;56(3):512-7. 3. Banarjee D, Ma J, Collins A, Herzog C. Long-term survival of incident hemodialysis patients who are hospitalized for congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema, or fluid overload. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(6):1186-90. 4. Qiu Y, Liu J, Ameson T, Gilbertson D, Collins A. Potentially avoidable fluid overload treatment in hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53(4):B63. 5. Jaeger J, Mehta R. Assessment of dry weight in hemodialysis: an overview. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10(2):392-403. 6. Charra B, Laurent G, Chazot E, et al. Clinical assessment of dry weight. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1996;11(Suppl 2):16-9. 7. Krause I, Birk E, Davidovits M, et al. Inferior vena cava diameter: a useful method for estimation of fluid status in children on haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16(6):1203-6. 8. Wang A, Sanderson J. Current perceptives on diagnosis of heart failure in long-term dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;57(2):308-19. 9. Kouw P, Kooman J, Cheriex E, Olthof C, de Vries P, Leunissen K. Assessment of postdialysis dry weight: A comparison of techniques. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1993;4(1):98-104. 10. Lameire N. Did 20 years of technological innovations in hemodialysis contribute to better patient outcomes? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(Suppl 1):S30-40. 11. Yu S, Kim D, Oh D, Yu S, Kang E. Assessment of fluid shifts of body compartments using both bioimpedance analysis and blood volume monitoring. J Korean Med Sci. 2006;21(1):75-80. 12. Wabel P, Moissl U, Chamney P, et al. Towards improved cardiovascular management: the necessity of combining blood pressure and fluid overload. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(9):2965-71. 13. Machek P, Jirka T, Moissl U, Chamney P, Wabel P. Guided optimization of fluid status in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(2):538-44. 14. Wizemann V, Wabel P, Chamney P, et al. The mortality risk of overhydration in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24(5):1574-9. 15. Lyon M, Verma M. Ultrasound guided volume assessment using inferior vena cava diameter. Open Emerg Med J. 2010;3:22-4. 16. Dietel T, Filler G, Grenda R, Wolfish N. Bioimpedance and inferior vena cava diameter for assessment of dialysis dry weight. Pediatr Nephrol. 2000;14(1-11):903-7. 17. Ando Y, Tabei K, Shiina A, Asano Y, Hosoda S. Ultrasonographic evaluation of changes in the inferior vena cava configuration during hemodialysis: relationship between the amount of water removed and the diameter of the inferior vena cava. Ther Apher Dial. 1985;18(2):173-9. 18. Tetsuka T, Ando Y, Oono S, Asano Y. Change in inferior vena caval diameter detected by ultrasonography during and after hemodialysis. ASAIO J. 1995;41(1):105-10. 19. Cheriex E, Leunissen K, Janssen J, Mooy J, van Hooff J. Echography of the inferior vena cava is a simple and reliable tool for estimation of “dry weight” in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1989;4(6):563-8. 20. Chan C, McIntyre C, Smith D, Spanel P, Davies S. Combining nearsubject absolute and relative measures of longitudinal hydration in hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(11):1791-8. 21. Kotanko P, Levin N, Zhu F. Current state of bioimpedance technologies in dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(3):808- 12. 22. Kyle U, Bosaeus I, Lorenzo A, et al. Bioelectrical impedance analysis - part I: review of principles and methods. Clin Nutr. 2004;23(5):1226-43.

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.