Estudio de concordancia entre las ecuaciones antropométricas y la bioimpedancia espectroscópica para la estimación del volumen de agua
- Ribés Cruz, José
- Puchades Montesa, María Jesús
- Juan García, Isabel
- Tomás-Simó, Patricia
- González, Miguel
- Torregrosa Maicas, Isidro
- Ramos Tomás, Carmela
- Solís Salguero, M. A.
- Tejedor Alonso, Sandra
- Miguel Carrasco, Alfonso
ISSN: 1886-2845
Any de publicació: 2013
Volum: 34
Número: 2
Pàgines: 74-80
Tipus: Article
Altres publicacions en: Diálisis y trasplante: publicación oficial de la Sociedad Española de Diálisis y Trasplante
Objectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible
Resum
Introduction: Biases can occur in Kt/V, depending on the method used to estimate total body water. The aim of this study was to determine the correlation and agreement among bioimpedance and the Watson, Hume and 58% weight equations, and to determine whether new equations based on anthropometric measurements in the Spanish population could be more accurate in estimating total body water. Methods: The study group consisted of 70 patients in a hemodialysis program. Total body water was estimated by multifrequency bioimpedance (BCM monitor, Fresenius Medical Care) and was calculated by the Watson, Hume and 58% weight equations. The correlation among methods was calculated by simple linear regression. The agreement among methods was assessed by Bland and Altman and Mountain plot. A new equation for estimating total body water was developed by multiple linear regression. Results: Except in the comparison between the Watson and Hume equations, all the methods showed significant differences. Comparison between bioimpedance and the Watson equation showed a mean difference of -4.59 l (-12.2; 3.1). The greatest difference was found in the comparison between bioimpedance and 58% weight, with a mean of -9.7 l (-19.9; 0,5). Comparison between bioimpedance and 58% weight, the Watson equation and the Hume equation showed a coefficient of determination [r2] of 0,72, 0,725 and 0,755 respectively (p < 0,001). The mean difference between the new equation and bioimpedance was -3.2 l (-9.6; 3.1). Discussion: The lack of agreement between bioimpedance and anthropometric equations does not allow these methods to be interchanged. Although the new equation based on anthropometric measurements in our population showed no significant differences when compared with the Watson and Hume equations, it showed the best agreement when compared with bioimpedance.