Lung Ultrasound and Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for Fluid Status Assessing Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis
Danna Zheng,Yueming Liu,Yuting Li,Juan Jin,Qiang He,Xiaogang Shen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/1232211
IF: 2.6
2024-01-09
International Journal of Clinical Practice
Abstract:Background. Volume overload is a fatal complication for people undergoing hemodialysis. Therefore, regulating a patient’s “dry weight” based on their fluid status is imperative. Clinical experiences are too subjective to accurately judge a patient’s fluid status, but techniques have emerged for improved fluid control in the two decades. Specifically, lung ultrasonography (LUS) uses a unique aspect of ultrasound images, the B-lines, to evaluate extravascular lung water, which has increasingly attracted attention. However, the role of B-line quantification in predicting short-mid-term death and/or cardiovascular complications is unclear. Methods. Patients undergoing MHD at the hemodialysis center of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital from October 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, were examined using LUS and a bioelectrical impedance analysis before and after dialysis, and related clinical data were collected. All patients were followed up for one year after the examination, and deaths and first cardiovascular events (e.g., stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure) during this period were recorded. Results. 98 patients were enrolled and divided into three groups in relation to their mild ( 30 B-lines) hypervolemia, defined by the number of B-lines. The long-term survival rate was significantly lower in the severe group than in the mild and moderate groups. LUS and bioelectrical impedance-related parameters (e.g., extracellular water-to-water ratio) were closely related to cardiac ultrasound parameters (left ventricular ejection fraction) ( P < 0.001 ). The optimal B-line cutoff value on LUS for predicting fluid overload (defined clinically) in patients on hemodialysis was 11.5 lines (AUC = 0.840, 95% confidence interval 0.735–0.945, P < 0.001 ), and the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were both 76.5%. During the one-year follow-up period, ten deaths and six cardiovascular events occurred. The survival rate was significantly lower in the severe group than in the mild group (log-rank test χ 2 = 10.050, P = 0.002 ) but did not differ between the severe and moderate groups ( χ 2 = 2.629, P = 0.105 ). Conclusion. LUS is a cheap, noninvasive, simple, and repeatable volume-monitoring method that can assist with individualized fluid volume management in patients undergoing MHD. LUS results may also help to predict the short-mid-term survival rate of patients to a certain extent.
medicine, general & internal