Muchiri K, Kayima JK, Ogola EN, McLigeyo S, Ndung’u SW, Kabinga SK. Concordance between bio-impedance analysis and clinical score in fluid-status assessment of maintenance haemodialysis patients: A single centre experience. World J Nephrol 2022; 11(4): 127-138 [PMID: 36161265 DOI: 10.5527/wjn.v11.i4.127]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Samuel K Kabinga, MBChB, MD, Doctor, East African Kidney Institute, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 30197, Nairobi +254, Kenya. kabingas@yahoo.com
Research Domain of This Article
Urology & Nephrology
Article-Type of This Article
Observational Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Nephrol. Jul 25, 2022; 11(4): 127-138 Published online Jul 25, 2022. doi: 10.5527/wjn.v11.i4.127
Concordance between bio-impedance analysis and clinical score in fluid-status assessment of maintenance haemodialysis patients: A single centre experience
Kamiti Muchiri, Joshua K Kayima, Elijah N Ogola, Seth McLigeyo, Sally W Ndung’u, Samuel K Kabinga
Kamiti Muchiri, Joshua K Kayima, Seth McLigeyo, Clinical Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Nairobi, Nairobi +254, Kenya
Elijah N Ogola, Department of Clinical Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Nairobi, Nairobi +254, Kenya
Sally W Ndung’u, Department of Public Health, University of Nairobi, Nairobi +254, Kenya
Samuel K Kabinga, East African Kidney Institute, University of Nairobi, Nairobi +254, Kenya
Author contributions: Muchiri K, Kayima JK, Ogola EN, McLigeyo S, and Kabinga SK designed and coordinated the study; Muchiri K performed all the study procedures; Ndung’u SW analysed and interpreted the data; Muchiri K, Kabinga SK, and Ndung’u SW wrote the manuscript; and all authors approved the final version of this article.
Institutional review board statement: The study was reviewed by the Kenyatta National Hospital/University of Nairobi Scientific and Ethical Review Committee and approved under proposal number P822/012/2018 prior to initiation.
Informed consent statement: All study participants or their legal guardian provided informed written consent about personal and medical data collection prior to study enrolment.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Data sharing statement: Data can be availed on request.
STROBE statement: The authors have read the STROBE Statement-checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement-checklist of items.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Samuel K Kabinga, MBChB, MD, Doctor, East African Kidney Institute, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 30197, Nairobi +254, Kenya. kabingas@yahoo.com
Received: June 19, 2021 Peer-review started: June 19, 2021 First decision: July 31, 2021 Revised: September 19, 2021 Accepted: June 21, 2022 Article in press: June 21, 2022 Published online: July 25, 2022 Processing time: 395 Days and 21.4 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is rising rapidly globally. Fluid overload (FO), an independent predictor of mortality in CKD, should be accurately assessed to guide estimation of the volume of fluid to be removed during haemodialysis (HD). Clinical score (CS) and bio-impedance analysis (BIA) have been utilized in assessment of FO and BIA has demonstrated reproducibility and accuracy in determination of fluid status in patients on HD. There is need to determine the performance of locally-developed CSs in fluid status assessment when evaluated against BIA.
AIM
To assess the hydration status of patients on maintenance HD using BIA and a CS, as well as to evaluate the performance of that CS against BIA in fluid status assessment.
METHODS
This was a single-centre, hospital-based cross-sectional study which recruited adult patients with CKD who were on maintenance HD at Kenyatta National Hospital. The patients were aged 18 years and above and had been on maintenance HD for at least 3 mo. Those with pacemakers, metallic implants, or bilateral limbs amputations were excluded. Data on the patients’ clinical history, physical examination, and chest radiograph findings were collected. BIA was performed on each of the study participants using the Quantum® II bio-impedance analyser manufactured by RJL Systems together with the BC 4® software. In evaluating the performance of the CS, BIA was considered as the gold standard test. A 2-by-2 table of the participants’ fluid status at each of the CS values obtained compared to their paired BIA results was constructed (either ++, +-, -- or -+ for FO using the CS and BIA, respectively). The results from this 2-by-2 table were used to compute the sensitivity and specificity of the CS at the various reference points and subsequently plot a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve that was used to determine the best cut-off point. Those above and below the best CS cut-off point as determined by the ROC were classified as being positive and negative for FO, respectively. The proportions of participants diagnosed with FO by the CS and BIA, respectively, were computed and summarized in a 2-by-2 contingency table for comparison. McNemar’s chi-squared test was used to assess any statistically significant difference in proportions of patients diagnosed as having FO by CS and BIA. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess whether the variables for the duration of dialysis, the number of missed dialysis sessions, advisement by health care professional on fluid or salt intake, actual fluid intake, the number of anti-hypertensives used, or body mass index were associated with a patient’s odds of having FO as diagnosed by BIA.
RESULTS
From 100 patients on maintenance HD screened for eligibility, 80 were recruited into this study. Seventy-one (88.75%) patients were fluid overloaded when evaluated using BIA with mean extracellular volume of 3.02 ± 1.79 L as opposed to the forty-seven (58.25%) patients who had FO when evaluated using the CS. The difference was significant, with a P value of < 0.0001 (95% confidence interval: 0.1758-0.4242). Using CS, values above 4 were indicative of FO while values less than or equal to 4 denoted the best cut-off for no FO. The sensitivity and specificity for the CS were 63% and 78% respectively. None of the factors evaluated for association with FO showed statistical significance on the multivariable logistic regression model.
CONCLUSION
FO is very prevalent in patients on chronic HD at the Kenyatta National Hospital. CS detects FO less frequently when compared with BIA. The sensitivity and specificity for the CS were 63% and 78% respectively. None of the factors evaluated for association with FO showed statistical significance on the multivariable logistic regression model.
Core Tip: Bio-impedance analysis (BIA) has been validated as an accurate and reliable tool for determining fluid status in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients but is not widely available in low-income settings. In this study we assess how a clinical score (CS) compares with BIA in this population for possible use as a low-cost substitute where BIA is not available. Patients with a CS score greater than 4 were considered to have fluid overload (FO), and detected using this parameter in 58.75% of patients. CSs of ≤ 4 represented no FO, and represented 41.25% of patients. The CS had a sensitivity of 63% and a specificity of 78% in making a diagnosis of FO compared with BIA, which was used as the reference in patients with CKD on maintenance haemodialysis.