Differences in bioimpedance-derived fluid status between two versions of the Body Composition Monitor.

OBJECTIVES: The Body Composition Monitor (BCM) (Fresenius Medical Care) measures body impedances in alternating currents to subsequently calculate fat and lean tissue mass, fluid compartments, and overhydration (OH). The aim of this study was to investigate differences between two versions of the BCM (an older version, 3.2.5, and a newer version, 3.3.3). METHODS: Between September 2021 and December 2021, 28 hemodialysis patients were included to undergo BCM measurements before each of 14 consecutive dialysis sessions with versions 3.2.5 and 3.3.3 devices. Measurements were performed according to instructions provided by the manufacturer. Differences between BCM devices were tested for statistical significance using paired Wilcoxon tests, neglecting clustering. RESULTS: A total of 288 measurement pairs of 27 patients were left after exclusion of 43 flawed data points. The mean difference in OH between both BCM devices was 0.548 L (higher for version 3.2.5). Analysis of impedance data revealed differences in the high-frequency spectrum, quantifiable by the intracellular resistance, Ri (median Ri version 3.2.5 = 1750.3 Ω; Ri version 3.3.3 = 1612.45 Ω; P < 0.001), and the time delay, Td (median Td version 3.2.5 = 1.85 ns; Td version 3.3.3 = 8.88 nanoseconds; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that results between the two versions of the BCM differed in a clinically meaningful fashion and that the newer version 3.3.3 device had a bias toward less OH. Circulating BCM devices should be checked for versions and only devices of the same version should be used for each patient to ensure better within-patient consistency.

Ultrafiltration-induced decrease in relative blood volume is larger in hemodialysis patients with low specific blood volume: Results from a dialysate bolus administration study.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing the ultrafiltration in hemodialysis patients remains challenging and might benefit from the information on absolute blood volume, estimated by intradialytic dialysate bolus administration. Here, we aimed at determining the relationship between absolute blood volume, normalized for body mass (specific blood volume, Vs), and ultrafiltration-induced decrease in relative blood volume (∆RBV) as well as clinical parameters including body mass index (BMI). METHODS: This retrospective analysis comprised 77 patients who had their dialysate bolus-based absolute blood volume extracted routinely with an automated method. Patient-specific characteristics and ∆RBV were analyzed as a function of Vs, dichotomizing the data above or below a previously proposed threshold of 65 ml/kg for Vs. Statistical methodology comprised descriptive analyses, two-group comparisons, and correlation analyses. FINDINGS: Median Vs was 68.6 ml/kg (54.9 ml/kg [Quartile 1], 83.4 ml/kg [Quartile 3]). Relative blood volume decreased by 6.3% (2.6%, 12.2%) over the entire hemodialysis session. Vs correlated inversely with BMI (rs  = -0.688, p < 0.001). ∆RBV was 9.8% in the group of patients with Vs <65 ml/kg versus 6.0% in the group of patients with Vs ≥65 ml/kg (p = 0.024). The two groups did not differ significantly regarding their specific ultrafiltration volume, normalized for body mass, which amounted to 34.1 ml/kg and 36.0 ml/kg in both groups, respectively (p = 0.630). ∆RBV correlated inversely with Vs (rs  = -0.299, p = 0.008). DISCUSSION: The present study suggests that patients with higher BMI and lower Vs experience larger blood volume changes, despite similar ultrafiltration requirements. These results underline the clinical plausibility and importance of dialysate bolus-based absolute blood volume determination in the assessment of target weight, especially in view of a previous study where intradialytic morbid events could be decreased when the target weight was adjusted, based on Vs.

Feasibility of Dialysate Bolus-Based Absolute Blood Volume Estimation in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Absolute blood volume (ABV) is a critical component of fluid status, which may inform target weight prescriptions and hemodynamic vulnerability of dialysis patients. Here, we utilized the changes in relative blood volume (RBV), monitored by ultrasound (BVM) upon intradialytic 240 mL dialysate fluid bolus-infusion 1 h after hemodialysis start, to calculate the session-specific ABV. With the main goal of assessing clinical feasibility, our sub-aims were to (i) standardize the BVM-data read-out; (ii) determine optimal time-points for ABV-calculation, "before-" and "after-bolus"; (iii) assess ABV-variation. METHODS: We used high-level programming language and basic descriptive statistics in a retrospective study of routinely measured BVM-data from 274 hemodialysis sessions in 98 patients. RESULTS: Regarding (i) and (ii), we automatized the processing of RBV-data, and determined an algorithm to select the adequate RBV-data points for ABV-calculations. Regarding (iii), we found in 144 BVM-curves from 75 patients, that the average ABV ± standard deviation was 5.2 ± 1.5 L and that among those 51 patients who still had ≥2 valid estimates, the average intra-patient standard deviation in ABV was 0.8 L. Twenty-seven of these patients had an average intra-patient standard deviation in ABV <0.5 L. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate feasibility of ABV-calculation by an automated algorithm after dialysate bolus-administration, based on the BVM-curve. Based on our results from this simple "abridged" calculation approach with routine clinical measurements, we encourage the use of multi-compartment modeling and comparison with reference methods of ABV-determination. Hopes are high that clinicians will be able to use ABV to inform target weight prescription, improving hemodynamic stability.