Original Research
Body Composition in Dialysis Patients: A Functional Assessment of Bioimpedance Using Different Prediction Models

https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jrn.2014.08.007Get rights and content

Objectives

The assessment of body composition (BC) in dialysis patients is of clinical importance given its role in the diagnosis of malnutrition and sarcopenia. Bioimpedance techniques routinely express BC as a 2-compartment (2-C) model distinguishing fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM), which may be influenced by the hydration of adipose tissue and fluid overload (OH). Recently, the BC monitor was introduced which applies a 3-compartment (3-C) model, distinguishing OH, adipose tissue mass, and lean tissue mass. The aim of this study was to compare BC between the 2-C and 3-C models and assess their relation with markers of functional performance (handgrip strength [HGS] and 4-m walking test), as well as with biochemical markers of nutrition.

Methods

Forty-seven dialysis patients (30 males and 17 females) (35 hemodialysis, 12 peritoneal dialysis) with a mean age of 64.8 ± 16.5 years were studied. 3-C BC was assessed by BC monitor, whereas the obtained resistivity values were used to calculate FM and FFM according to the Xitron Hydra 4200 formulas, which are based on a 2-C model.

Results

FFM (3-C) was 0.99 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 1.71, P = .008) higher than FFM (2-C). FM (3-C) was 2.43 kg (95% CI, 1.70-3.15, P < .001) lower than FM (2-C). OH was 1.4 ± 1.8 L. OH correlated significantly with ΔFFM (FFM 3-C − FFM 2-C) (r = 0.361; P < .05) and ΔFM (FM 3-C − FM 2-C) (r = 0.387; P = .009). HGS correlated significantly with FFM (2-C) (r = 0.713; P < .001), FFM (3-C) (r = 0.711; P < .001), body cell mass (2-C) (r = 0.733; P < .001), and body cell mass (3-C) (r = 0.767; P < .001). Both physical activity (r = 0.456; P = .004) and HGS (r = 0.488; P = .002), but not BC, were significantly related to walking speed.

Conclusions

Significant differences between 2-C and 3-C models were observed, which are partly explained by the presence of OH. OH, which was related to ΔFFM and ΔFM of the 2-C and 3-C models, is therefore an important parameter for the differences in estimation of BC parameters of the 2-C and 3-C models. Both FFM (3-C) and FFM (2-C) were significantly related to HGS. Bioimpedance, HGS, and the 4-m walking test may all be valuable tools in the multidimensional nutritional assessment of both hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients.

Introduction

Protein–energy wasting (PEW) is common in dialysis patients and strongly related to morbidity and mortality.1 Dialysis patients suffering from PEW syndrome are often characterized by low body weight, low protein and energy levels, and loss of muscle mass (sarcopenia) and have an increased risk of frailty, which is also common in dialysis patients besides an increased risk of mortality.2 Given the fact that PEW and sarcopenia in dialysis patients may be partly amendable to interventions such as optimal nutrition and exercise training, optimal diagnosis of changes in body composition (BC) is of great clinical importance.3

Various methods are available to estimate BC in renal failure. For example, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging have a high reliability and precision in determining lipid mass and fat mass (FM) and thus estimating lean body mass (LBM).4, 5, 6 Nevertheless, these methods are not applicable on a bedside basis. Other techniques like anthropometric measurements are operator dependent and may therefore be imprecise. Recently, the value of serum creatinine as a marker of muscle mass was shown.7, 8 However, this approach is only reliable in stable dialysis patients due to the variability of serum creatinine levels, influenced by, for example, dietary intake.8

Bioimpedance techniques are easily applicable as a bedside tool for nutritional assessment and have been widely used in studies for the assessment of BC in dialysis patients.9 Multifrequency bioimpedance analysis is theoretically able to distinguish between extracellular (ECW) and intracellular water (ICW) and estimates BC as a 2-compartment (2-C) model by evaluating fat-free mass (FFM) and FM,10 whereas appendicular mass by DEXA is used for the traditional diagnosis of sarcopenia. However, in a 2-C model, variations in hydration state may have a strong effect on the prediction of FFM.11, 12 Recently, a novel prediction model was validated, in which BC is estimated as a 3-compartment (3-C) model, by which also fluid overload (OH) is estimated. The model uses a correction factor for body mass index (BMI) and was introduced into the body composition monitor (BCM). The BCM is based on earlier versions of the XiTRON Bioimpedance spectroscopy device (Hydra 4200; XiTRON Technologies Inc., San Diego, CA), and estimates BC as a 3-C model by which OH, lean tissue mass (LTM), and adipose tissue mass (ATM) are calculated from ECW and total body water estimations. In this model, constant hydration ratios of the normohydrated lean tissue and adipose tissue are assumed.11 Various interventional and observational studies have shown the value of the BCM assessing OH in dialysis patients.13, 14, 15 However, to the best of our knowledge, no direct comparison has been performed between 2-C and 3-C models in the assessment of BC in dialysis patients. Still, given the fact that both 2-C and 3-C models are presently used in clinical practice as well as for research purposes, it is of importance to identify potential differences in the assessment of BC between both diagnostic approaches.

Whereas appendicular skeletal muscle, as measured by DEXA, is traditionally used as a gold standard in the diagnosis of sarcopenia, also FFM, assessed by BIA has been suggested as an alternative tool in the diagnosis of sarcopenia.16 However, for a valid method in the diagnosis of sarcopenia, a strong relation between BC and functional performance is to be expected.

Recently, functional definitions of sarcopenia, based on handgrip strength (HGS) and walking speed were introduced.17 There is limited evidence on the relation between bioimpedance with functional parameters of physical performance. For clinical application, it is also of importance to identify to which degree there are different or overlapping dimensions between BC and different markers of physical performance.

The first aim of this study was to compare BC estimated by a 2-C and 3-C whole-body bioimpedance model. The second aim was to assess the relation between BC, assessed by the 2 different models with parameters of functional performance, in comparison with biochemical and clinical nutritional parameters in dialysis patients.

Section snippets

Study Population

Forty-seven dialysis patients (35 hemodialysis [HD] and 12 peritoneal dialysis [PD] patients) were included in this study. Age ranged from 23 to 88 years. All participating patients were in a stable clinical condition.

Patients were treated with HD or PD treatment for at least 1 month. Patients were not in a fasting state during the measurements. Exclusion criteria were an implantable cardioverter defibrillator or pacemaker (interference with BCM), acute intercurrent disease, and physical

Patient Characteristics

Patient demographics are shown in Table 1. Of the 47 patients, 8.5% had a BMI <20 kg/m2, 21.3% had a BMI between 20 and 24.9 kg/m2, 38.3% had a BMI between 25 and 29.9 kg/m2, and 31.9% had a BMI ≥30 kg/m2. In 87.2% of the patients, mean walking speed (1.32 ± 0.46 m/second) was above the reference value for the general population, where poor mobility was defined as walking speed <0.8 m/second.17 In Table S1, gender distribution is shown for different dialysis modalities.

Comparison of Body Composition Between the 2-C and 3-C Models

Outcome parameters of the

Discussion

This study showed significant differences between the 2-C bioimpedance model and the 3-C model. However, both FFM (3-C) and FFM (2-C) were strongly related to HGS and therefore an important functional parameter of sarcopenia. Although a strong relation between bioimpedance parameters and HGS was observed, the results of the 4-m walking test were also significantly related to HGS but not directly to BC. This suggests that these 3 techniques, which are easily applicable in clinical practice,

Practical Application

Noninvasive techniques for BC assessment by bioimpedance, HGS measurements, and the 4-m walking test may all be valuable tools to assess nutritional status in dialysis patients. Implementing these tools on a bedside basis could facilitate interventions at an earlier point in time before the development of clinical symptoms.

References (36)

  • D.M. Mijnarends et al.

    Validity and reliability of tools to measure muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review

    J Am Med Dir Assoc

    (2013)
  • E. Piitulainen et al.

    Nutritional status and muscle strength in patients with emphysema and severe alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency

    Chest

    (2002)
  • E.C. van den Ham et al.

    Similarities in skeletal muscle strength and exercise capacity between renal transplant and hemodialysis patients

    Am J Transplant

    (2005)
  • K. Kalantar-Zadeh et al.

    Diets and enteral supplements for improving outcomes in chronic kidney disease

    Nat Rev Nephrol

    (2011)
  • A.B. Dufour et al.

    Sarcopenia definitions considering body size and fat mass are associated with mobility limitations: the Framingham Study

    J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci

    (2013)
  • K.J. Ellis

    Human body composition: in vivo methods

    Physiol Rev

    (2000)
  • S.S. Patel et al.

    Serum creatinine as a marker of muscle mass in chronic kidney disease: results of a cross-sectional study and review of literature

    J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle

    (2013)
  • C. Yuste et al.

    Assessment of nutritional status in haemodialysis patients

    Nefrologia

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Maastricht University Hospital and the Hospital Board.

    Support: This study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Fresenius Medical Care, Europe.

    View full text