Journal of Applied Physiology AJP: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 100: 717-724, 2006. First published October 27, 2005; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00669.2005
8750-7587/06 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/2/717    most recent
00669.2005v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zhu, F.
Right arrow Articles by Levin, N. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zhu, F.
Right arrow Articles by Levin, N. W.

INNOVATIVE METHODOLOGY

Segment-specific resistivity improves body fluid volume estimates from bioimpedance spectroscopy in hemodialysis patients

F. Zhu,1 M. K. Kuhlmann,1 G. A. Kaysen,2 S. Sarkar,1 C. Kaitwatcharachai,1 R. Khilnani,1 L. Stevens,1 E. F. Leonard,3 J. Wang,4 S. Heymsfield,4 and N. W. Levin1

1Renal Research Institute and Beth Israel Medical Center, New York; 2Division of Nephrology, University of California, Davis, California; 3Department of Chemical Engineering, Columbia University, and 4Body Composition Unit, St. Lukes Hospital, New York, New York

Submitted 6 June 2005 ; accepted in final form 20 October 2005


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Discrepancies in body fluid estimates between segmental bioimpedance spectroscopy (SBIS) and gold-standard methods may be due to the use of a uniform value of tissue resistivity to compute extracellular fluid volume (ECV) and intracellular fluid volume (ICV). Discrepancies may also arise from the exclusion of fluid volumes of hands, feet, neck, and head from measurements due to electrode positions. The aim of this study was to define the specific resistivity of various body segments and to use those values for computation of ECV and ICV along with a correction for unmeasured fluid volumes. Twenty-nine maintenance hemodialysis patients (16 men) underwent body composition analysis including whole body MRI, whole body potassium (40K) content, deuterium, and sodium bromide dilution, and segmental and wrist-to-ankle bioimpedance spectroscopy, all performed on the same day before a hemodialysis. Segment-specific resistivity was determined from segmental fat-free mass (FFM; by MRI), hydration status of FFM (by deuterium and sodium bromide), tissue resistance (by SBIS), and segment length. Segmental FFM was higher and extracellular hydration of FFM was lower in men compared with women. Segment-specific resistivity values for arm, trunk, and leg all differed from the uniform resistivity used in traditional SBIS algorithms. Estimates for whole body ECV, ICV, and total body water from SBIS using segmental instead of uniform resistivity values and after adjustment for unmeasured fluid volumes of the body did not differ significantly from gold-standard measures. The uniform tissue resistivity values used in traditional SBIS algorithms result in underestimation of ECV, ICV, and total body water. Use of segmental resistivity values combined with adjustment for body volumes that are neglected by traditional SBIS technique significantly improves estimations of body fluid volume in hemodialysis patients.

body composition; bioimpedance; whole body; segments; body fluid; magnetic resonance imaging

ACCURATE ESTIMATION OF body fluid volumes in hemodialysis (HD) patients could be of value in managing their hydration state. Because there is no simple and reliable method for measuring extracellular fluid volume (ECV), the hydration status is usually estimated by clinical examination, which, however, lacks accuracy due to the fact that some liters of fluid have to accumulate in the body before edema, the most prominent sign of overhydration, becomes clinically evident. One of the goals of HD treatments is the complete removal of excess ECV and establishment of a normal hydration status (dry weight) at the end of treatment. Dry weight is clinically determined as the lowest post-HD weight a patient can tolerate without developing intra- or interdialytic symptoms. Dry weight needs to be reassessed regularly. This clinical method of dry weight determination, however, may be unpleasant and risky for the patient, especially when associated with cramps and intradialytic hypotensive episodes. Accurate assessment of ECV and intracellular fluid volume (ICV) by means other than the clinical "trial-and-error" method is desirable and should greatly improve the quality of HD.

Multifrequency bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) has been advocated as a noninvasive, simple, and inexpensive tool to assess fluid status in HD patients as well as other areas of medicine (4, 7, 11, 18, 21). The BIS method for estimation of ICV and ECV as well as total body water (TBW) is based on the conductive properties of different body tissues in response to electrical currents of various frequencies (9, 12). The volume of conductive tissues can be derived from the corresponding electrical resistances. Tissues containing a combination of water and electrolytes are more conductive than bone, air-filled spaces, and fat. Nevertheless, several reports show that current bioimpedance methods may not be accurate enough for clinical use (8, 14, 34).

One of the reasons for inaccuracy of whole body wrist-to-ankle BIS (WBIS) method may be its view of the body as one cylinder, ignoring differences in geometric shape and size of the various body segments (27, 33). A segmental BIS (SBIS) approach has been developed that measures bioimpedance in arm, trunk, and leg segments separately and then estimates total body fluid volumes as a sum of segmental values (2, 22). However, even with this approach, total body ECV is underestimated (3). This may be due to the use of a uniform resistivity value for all segments in the equations used for calculation of segmental ECV. It is hypothesized that estimates of ECV, ICV, and TBW from SBIS could be considerably improved by using segment-specific resistivity in the equations. However, assessment of segmental-resistivity remains difficult, because a gold-standard measure of ECV and ICV in each specific segment would be required.

Tracer dilution methods are considered gold standards for assessment of body fluid volumes. Deuterium (D2O) dilution is generally used for assessment of TBW and NaBr dilution for ECV, whereas ICV can be assessed either from total body potassium content (TBK) or as the difference between TBW and ECV (28, 30). Dilution methods are not able to directly predict segmental fluid volumes. An approach to define them is the measurement of total body fat-free mass (FFM) and its hydration status, the definition of segmental tissue composition by imaging technology, and then the calculation of fluid volumes based on the hydration index of the segmental FFMs. The major body segments, arms, trunk, and legs, are composed of fat, muscle, and bone, and their respective masses can be measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The hydration state of FFM is calculated from MRI and dilution methods and is assumed to be similar in each body segment. The hydration status of FFM is relatively stable (TBW/FFM = 0.73) in normal healthy subjects (24). However, because of fluid retention due to lack of kidney excretory function, the hydration status of FFM in HD patients may be higher than in healthy subjects. The aim of this study was to improve the accuracy of SBIS in maintenance HD patients by measuring the specific resistivity of various body segments and applying those values to algorithms used for calculation of ECV, ICV, and TBW.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Subjects

Twenty-nine maintenance HD patients (16 men/13 women) [age 54.9 ± 11 yr, body weight 77.9 ± 18 kg, height 167 ± 10 cm] gave informed, written consent. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Beth Israel Medical Center, New York.

Measurement

Dilution methods.   TBW and ECV were measured before HD by D2O and NaBr dilution methods. Each patient was given an oral dose of 10 g of D2O (ICON, Summit, N.J.) and 5 g of 4 M NaBr solution (26). Blood samples were collected immediately before and 3 h after intake of these substances, when equilibration had been reached.

TBK.   40K, a natural radioisotope of potassium, was used for estimation of TBK by using a whole body counter (30). TBK (in mmol) was estimated as 40K/0.0118, and body cell mass was measured as 0.00883·TBK (24, 26).

MRI.   MRI of the whole body was carried out as reported by Gallagher et al. (15). Scans were prepared using a 1.5-T scanner (General Electric, 6X Horizon, Milwaukee, WI). Subjects were placed in a prone position with their arms extended overhead, and the protocol involved the acquisition of ~40 axial images of 10-mm thickness and 40-mm spacing from neck to foot. MRI provided estimates of fat, muscle, and bone volumes, and a correction was made for hydration of adipose tissue.

All MRI scans were segmented into the components mentioned above by highly trained analysts using image analysis software (Tomovision, Montreal, QC, Canada). In a multiple-step procedure, a threshold was selected for adipose tissue and lean tissue, and lines were drawn around the selected regions by use of a Watershed algorithm. Thereafter, tissues of interest were color labeled, and the respective tissue areas (cm2) for each MRI image were calculated by summing the specific tissue pixels and then multiplying by the individual pixel surface area. The volume per slice (ml) was derived by multiplying tissue area by slice thickness, and the volume of each tissue for the space between two slices was calculated and converted to mass units (kg) on the basis of specific tissue densities (15).

Anthropometry.   Body weight was measured by an electrical scale, and height was measured to an accuracy of 0.1 cm. The length of each segment (arm trunk and leg) was measured to an accuracy of 0.1 cm, with radiolucent markers indicating the proximal and distal ends of each segment. Maximal and minimal circumferences of each segment were also measured.

Multi-frequency BIS.   A multi-frequency device (Xitron 4200) was used for automatic sequential measurements of BIS of arm, trunk, leg, and wrist-to-ankle, with frequencies ranging from 5 kHz to 1 MHz. Current was injected through two electrodes placed on one wrist and the ipsilateral ankle. Voltage was recorded from four electrodes placed on the wrist and ipsilateral shoulder, greater trochanter, and ankle, and the signal was transferred to the BIS device by a digital switch (33). The arm not used for dialysis access was used for BIS measurements. With this method, SBIS and WBIS could be recorded together. To allow for equilibration of body fluids, patients were positioned supine for at least 15 min before the start of measurements. Each measurement was repeated at least 10 times, and the average value was used in subsequent computation.

Calculations

The average of total bromide space (ECVNaBr) and the difference between D2O space (TBWD2O) and TBK space (ICVTBK) (ECVTBK = TBWD2O – ICVTBK) were used as the ECV gold standard (ECVG), and the average of ICVTBK and the difference between TBWD2O and ECVG were used as the ICV gold standard (ICVG).

Hydration state of FFM.   Total body FFM (FFMtotal) was calculated as body mass (body weight) less total body fat mass. Segmental FFM was calculated as skeletal muscle mass plus bone mass. Extra- and intracellular hydration status of FFM were calculated as the ratios of total body ECV to FFM ({alpha} = ECVG/FFMtotal) and total body ICV to FFM (beta = ICVG/FFMtotal), respectively. Hydration coefficients {alpha} and the beta thus resemble indexes of body hydration. It was assumed that the value of the {alpha} and beta in the whole body and each segment were identical.

Segment-specific resistivity.   Based on resistance and reactance data derived from BIS, extracellular (RE; {Omega}) and intracellular resistance (RI; {Omega}) were calculated using the Cole-Cole model (15). Extracellular ({rho}E; {Omega}·cm) and intracellular segmental resistivity ({rho}I; {Omega}·cm) were then calculated as

Formula 1(1)

Formula 2(2)
where FFMi is segmental FFM, L is length of each segment (cm), and i represents the individual segment.

Segmental and total body ECV and ICV.   Segmental ECVi and ICVi were calculated as:

Formula 3(3)

Formula 4(4)
Total body ECV and ICV were calculated, respectively, as the sum of segmental ECV and ICV, either using segmental resistivity values (ECVSR and ICVSR, Eqs. 5 and 6) or using the uniform resistivity value for each segment (ECVUR and ICVUR, Eqs. 7 and 8, according to Ref. 34):

Formula 5(5)

Formula 6(6)

Formula 7(7)

Formula 8(8)
where {rho}ECV and {rho}ICV represent the uniform extra- and intracellular resistivity values for SBIS ({rho}ECV = 47 {Omega}·cm for men and women, {rho}ICV =273.9 {Omega}·cm for men and 264.9 {Omega}·cm for women), and LA, LL, LT, and REA, REL, RET, RIA, RIL, RIT represent lengths (L) and segmental RE and RI for arms, legs, and trunk, respectively.

For each method, TBW was computed as the sum of ECV and ICV.

Formula 8

Formula 8

Due to the location of the electrodes, the ECV and ICV estimates from SBIS do not include fluid compartments contained in hands, feet, head, and neck. Therefore, ECV and ICV results were corrected for the hydrated FFM of each of these compartments. Estimates for the FFM of head, neck, hands, and feet were based on the fraction of total FFM contained in these areas, as reported recently (10), and the measured extracellular and intracellular hydration status of total FFM, as described above:

Formula 9(9)

Formula 10(10)
where CE and CI represent the coefficients of ECV and ICV in unmeasured body fluid compartment, respectively. FFMhead+neck is 5.87%, FFMhand is 0.97%, and FFMfoot is 0.43% of total body weight (10).

Total adjusted ECVSR and ICVSR were then calculated as:

Formula 11(11)

Formula 12(12)

Whole body bioimpedance measures.   For the WBIS method, whole body ECVW, ICVW, and TBWW were calculated according to Ref. 9 as:

Formula 13(13)
where H is body height (in cm) and W is body mass (in kg).

KECV is a factor related to body shape, density, and resistivity by the following equation:

Formula 14(14)
where D is body density considered as constant value (kg/l), and KB is a coefficient relating body height to limb geometry:

Formula 15(15)
where CA, CT, and CL represent segmental circumferences.

ICVW was calculated as:

Formula 16(16)
where k{rho} is the ratio of intracellular fluid resistivity to the extracellular fluid resistivity (k{rho} = intracellular resistivity/extracellular resistivity).

Intracellular resistivity ({rho}ICV) values used for WBIS were 273.9 {Omega}·cm for men and 264.9 {Omega}·cm for women; extracellular resistivity ({rho}ECV) values for WBIS were 40.5 {Omega}·cm for men and 30 {Omega}·cm for women.

TBW was obtained as sum of ECVW and ICVW.

Statistical Analysis

Data are presented as means ± SD. Linear regression analysis was performed to study the relationship between gold-standard measures of body water compartments, with estimates generated by SBIS and WBIS. Bland-Altman plot was used to report bias and limits of agreement between gold standard and bioimpedance measurements. Differences between groups were compared using Student’s paired t-test and were assumed significant at P < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using Prism 4 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Table 1 summarizes results of anthropometric measurements and ECV, ICV, and TBW value, as estimated by classical dilution methods. TBWD2O, ECVNaBr, ICVTBK, and FFM were all significantly higher in men compared with women. The ratio of ECV to FFM (ECV/FFM = {alpha}) was significantly higher in female patients, indicating a higher hydration state ({alpha}: 0.39 ± 0.05 vs. 0.34 ± 0.03 l/kg, P < 0.001). In contrast, the ratio of ICV to FFM (ICV/FFM = beta) was not different between genders (beta: 0.41 ± 0.04 vs. 0.41 ± 0.02 l/kg). FFM of arms, legs, and trunk, as estimated from MRI, were significantly higher in men vs. women (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Patients’ physical characteristics

 
Whole body RE and RI were measured either directly by WBIS or calculated as the sum of segmental resistances from SBIS (Table 2). The mean sum of segmental RE was not different from mean whole body RE in men or women. In contrast, the sum of segmental RI and whole body RI were both lower in men than in women.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Extracellular and intracellular resistance in men and women

 
Specific resistivity values for various body segments were computed from FFM hydration coefficients ({alpha} and beta), segmental FFM, and segmental resistance using Eqs. 1 and 2. Extracellular segment-specific resistivity differed significantly between arms, legs, and trunk (Table 3). Intracellular segment-specific resistivity values for legs and trunk were not different from each other but were significantly higher than for arms. ECV and ICV were calculated for each segment using the classical BIS equations by applying a uniform resistivity factor for each segment (SBISUR) and compared with estimates derived from the modified equations using segment-specific resistivity values (SBISSR) (Table 4). ECV estimates for arms and legs derived from SBIS with segment-specific resistivity were significantly higher compared with the traditional method, whereas estimates for trunk ECV were lower. In contrast, ICV and TBW (ECV + ICV) estimates for arms and trunk were lower when derived from SBISSR than from SBISUR. No difference between the two methods was found for leg ICV estimates. Estimates of total body ECV, calculated as sum of segments, were higher when computed with segment-specific than with uniform resistivity values.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Specific segmental resistivity in male and female subjects

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Comparison of ECV and ICV calculated by two segmental bioimpedance spectroscopy

 
In contrast to gold standard methods, SBIS does not take into account the volumes of hands, feet, head, and neck and thus underestimates total body volumes. For direct comparison with gold standards, BIS data were adjusted for unmeasured regions of the body according to Eqs. 9–12. Adjusted total ECV and TBW calculated from SBISSR were not different from gold standards, whereas calculations from WBIS and SBISUR resulted in significantly lower estimates (Table 5).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Comparison of fluid volume by bioimpedance spectroscopy and gold standard

 
The correlations of ECV, ICV, and TBW with the respective gold standard methods were stronger for SBISSR than for WBIS (Figs. 1– 3) (ECVSR: R2 = 0.93; ICVSR: R2 = 0.86; TBWsR: R2 = 0.96 vs. ECVw: R2 = 0.83; ICVw: R2 = 0.83; TBWw: R2 = 0.87). Figures 1–3 show Bland-Altman plots for comparison of gold standard and the two BIS methods, demonstrating the superiority of SBISSR over WBIS for the assessment of body fluid volumes.


Figure 1
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. A and B: prediction of extracellular fluid volume (ECV) from segmental bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) in hemodialysis patients. Segmental BIS (SBIS), including segment-specific resistivity (A) and wrist-to-ankle bioimpedance (WBIS; B) were correlated with gold-standard ECV (ECVG) derived from averaging total bromide space and the difference between total body water (deuterium space) and ICV (total body potassium) (r2 = 0.9287 for SBIS and r2 = 0.8345 for WBIS). C and D: Bland-Altman plots comparing total body ECVG and bioimpedance-estimated ECV using SBIS including segment-specific resistivity (C) and WBIS (D).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. A and B: prediction of (TBW) from segmental bioimpedance spectroscopy in hemodialysis patients. SBIS including segment-specific resistivity (A) and WBIS (B) were correlated with gold standard TBW (TBWG) calculated as sum of ECVG and ICVG (r2 = 0.9599 for SBIS and r2 = 0.8345 for WBIS). C and D: Bland-Altman plot comparing TBWG and bioimpedance-estimated TBW using SBIS including segment-specific resistivity (C) and WBIS (D).

 
The geometry of segments differed significantly between men and women with regard to length and circumference (Table 6). The specific KB values calculated with Eq. 15 were higher than the value currently used in those equations (KB = 4.3) but were not different between men and women. There is no improvement of accuracy of WBIS by comparing gold standard ECV and ECVW using individual KB calculated with Eq. 15 (Fig. 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 6. Anthropometric measurement

 

Figure 4
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Bland-Altman plot comparing total body, ECVG and bioimpedance-estimated ECV using WBIS computed with individual KB values according to Eq. 9 (ECVWBIS-iKB)

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
Various approaches to the use of whole body and segmental bioimpedance have been made for assessment of body composition and body fluid volumes in HD patients (4, 5, 17, 31). For WBIS, the body is assumed to be a uniform cylinder with homogeneous conductivity, whereas for SBIS the body is viewed as several cylinders of differing sizes connected in parallel and in series. Results derived from both BIS methods are based on measures of tissue resistance and reactance. Equations used for calculation of ECVs from SBIS currently include a factor for tissue resistivity ({rho}), which does not differ for the various segments (33). Resistivity of a specific body segment, however, depends on its tissue composition and hydration status and, because it is assumed to be a cylinder, on the segment’s length and circumference. In this paper, we have defined segment-specific resistivity values for arms, legs, and trunk separately and have applied those values to the equations for calculation of ICV, ECV, and TBW. The results were compared with those obtained with a uniform resistivity factor and to data derived from WBIS. This study shows that both extracellular and intracellular resistivity differ between segments and indicates that accuracy of body fluid volume measurements from SBIS can be significantly improved by using segment-specific resistivity.

For the definition of segmental resistivity, it was essential to measure FFM and the hydration status of FFM with gold-standard methods independent of BIS. Whole body and segmental FFM were determined by MRI, a validated method for assessment of muscle and fat mass (20). The hydration status of whole body FFM was defined by the ratios of ECV to FFM ({alpha}) and ICV to FFM (beta), where the ECVG was determined as the average of ECVNaBr and the difference between TBWD2O and ICVTBK (ECVTBK = TBWD2O – ICVTBK). ICVG was calculated as the difference of TBWD2O and ECVG. The ratio of ECV to FFM was higher in women than in men, and a similar observation was made for the TBW-to-FFM ratios, which were both higher than those reported for normal subjects (0.73 l/kg) (29). There was no sex difference for the ICV-to-FFM ratio. Because our data were obtained on a regular dialysis day before the start of dialysis treatment, these differences are in accordance with accumulation of water in the extracellular space between dialysis treatments. The sex differences in ECV/FFM are readily explained by generally lower FFM in women compared with men but similar interdialytic weight gain. For further analyses, the hydration status of FFM indicated by the factors {alpha} and beta was assumed to be identical throughout the body for each sex.

Extracellular and intracellular segmental resistivities were determined for arms, legs, and trunk. Extracellular segmental resistivity of the trunk was significantly higher than that of arm and leg, which also differed significantly from each other. Intracellular segmental resistivity was similar for trunk and leg but significantly lower in the arm. These differences in segmental resistivities may be due to 1) differences in the composition of body tissues within each segment that affect the distribution of body fluid and 2) differences in segmental geometric shape and volume that lead to inhomogeneous distribution of the electrical current. The traditional algorithms for calculation of segmental ECV and ICV (Eqs. 7 and 8) from SBIS take into account tissue resistance data specific for each segment but employ only a uniform value for segmental resistivity (33, 34). In a previous study (33), our laboratory reported that these traditional SBIS equations underestimate trunk ECV due to inhomogeneous distribution of current throughout the trunk, and we have been able to improve the accuracy of the equation by introduction of a compensatory factor. The present study shows that there are major differences between the uniform resistivity value and those derived from our measurements for each segment. Use of uniform rather than segmental resistivity values leads to underestimation of segmental and total body fluid volumes.

Due to location of the electrodes, tissue volumes for hands, feet, head, and neck are not included in SBIS measurements. We have compensated for these body fluid compartments in our calculations (Eqs. 9–12) and thus were able to further improve SBIS accuracy. Use of segment-specific resistivity values in combination with correction for unmeasured body fluid compartments resulted in significantly improved estimates of ECV, ICV and TBW from SBIS and the results did not differ statistically from those derived from gold standard methods. One other factor that might interfere with impedance measurements is plasma electrolyte concentration, which changes during and between dialysis treatments. However, the effects of electrolyte concentration on impedance are difficult to separate from changes in body water volumes due to the inherent linkage of changes in electrolyte concentration with those in ECVs in HD patients.

Whole body BIS is the bioimpedance technique used most frequently for assessment of body fluid volumes. This technique assumes the body to be one cylinder, and equations include factor KB (KB = 4.3), which relates body height to limb geometry. The constant KB is used under the assumption that limb length and body height are proportionate (9, 12, 31), which may not always be the case. The accuracy of WBIS should be improved by applying individual body segmental coefficients instead of a constant KB value (12). We have measured segmental limb lengths and circumferences and introduced individual KB values for calculation of ECV, ICV, and TBW. This, however, did not significantly improve the accuracy of WBIS estimates, which still were significantly lower than both gold standard estimates and estimates from SBIS using segment-specific resistivity.

Although data on ECV are clinically useful for estimation of body hydration and prescription of dry weight, data on ICV, which are closely related to muscle mass, may be used for assessment of body composition. Clinically, accurate assessment of segmental or whole body ECV and ICV by BIS will allow differentiation of causes of weight gain (overhydration vs. increase in muscle mass) or weight loss (dehydration vs. loss of muscle mass) in HD patients.

In conclusion, the accuracy of ECV, ICV, and TBW estimates from SBIS in maintenance HD patients is improved by applying segment-specific resistivity values for arms, legs, and trunk and by correcting for unmeasured body compartments. Accuracy of whole body BIS was not improved by adjusting for individual limb geometry. Accurate estimation of body fluid volumes is useful in predicting body composition in dialysis and nondialysis patients, and SBIS appears to be a most promising tool for these purposes. However, it should be emphasized that the segment-specific resistivity values reported here were obtained from patients with end-stage renal disease and thus may not be applicable to a nondialysis population.


   GRANTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 
This work was supported by funds provided by the Renal Research Institute. Part of this work was presented at the 36th ASN conference, 2003.


Figure 2
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. A and B: prediction of intracellular fluid volume (ICV) from SBIS in hemodialysis patients. SBIS including segment-specific resistivity (A) and WBIS (B) were correlated with gold-standard ICV (ICVG) derived from averaging TBK-derived ICV and the difference between total body water (deuterium space) and ECVG (total body potassium) (r2 = 0.8629 for SBIS and r2 = 0.8345 for WBIS). C and D: Bland-Altman plot comparing total body ICVG and bioimpedance estimated ICV, using SBIS including segment-specific resistivity (C) and WBIS (D).

 

   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
 
The authors thank the staff at Body Composition Unit, St. Lukes Hospital, and Yorkville Dialysis Center in New York for assistance this study.


   FOOTNOTES
 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: F. Zhu, Renal Research Institute, Yorkville Dialysis Center, 1555 3rd Ave. #218, New York, NY 10128 (e-mail: fzhu{at}rriny.com)

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Baumgartner RN, Ross R, and Heymsfield SB. Does adipose tissue influence bioelectric impedance in obese men and women? J Appl Physiol 84: 257–262, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Bracco D, Thiebaud D, Chiolero RL, Landry M, Burckhardt P, and Schutz Y. Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and DEXA in humans. J Appl Physiol 81: 2580–2587, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Chanchairujira T and Mehta RL. Assessing fluid change in hemodialysis: whole body versus sum of segmental bioimpedance spectroscopy. Kidney Int 60: 2337–2342, 2001.[Medline]
  4. Chertow GM, Lazarus JM, Lew NL, Ma L, and Lowrie EG. Bioimpedance norms for the hemodialysis population. Kidney Int 52: 1617–1621, 1997.[Medline]
  5. Chertow GM, Lowrie EG, Wilmore DW, Gonzalez J, Lew NL, Ling J, Leboff MS, Gottlieb MN, Huang W, and Zebrowski B. Nutritional assessment with bioelectrical impedance analysis in maintenance hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 75–81, 1995.[Abstract]
  6. Cole KS and Cole RH. Dispersion and absorption in dielectrics. I. Alternating current characteristics. J Chem Phys 9: 341–351, 1941.[CrossRef]
  7. Cooper BA, Aslani A, Ryan M, Zhu FYP, Ibels LS, Allen BJ, and Pollock CA. Comparing different methods of assessing body composition in end-stage renal failure. Kidney Int 58: 408–416, 2000.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  8. Cox-Reijven PL, Kooman JP, Soeters PB, van der Sande FM, and Leunissen KML. Role of bioimpedance spectroscopy in assessment of body water compartment in hemodialysis patients. AJKD 38: 832–838, 2001.
  9. De Lorenzo Andreoli A, Matthie JR, and Withers PO. Predicting body cell mass with bioimpedance by using theoretical methods: a technological review. J Appl Physiol 82: 1542–1558, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Dempster WT and Gaughran GRL. Properties of body segments based on size and weight. Am J Anat 120: 33–54, 2005.[CrossRef]
  11. Dumler FD. Use of bioelectrical impedance analysis and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for monitoring the nutrition status of dialysis patients. ASAIO J 43: 256–260, 1997.[Medline]
  12. Ellis KJ and Wong WW. Human hydrometry: comparison of multifrequency electrical bioimpedance with 2H2O and bromine dilution. J Appl Physiol 85: 1056–1062, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Ellis KJ, Shypailo RJ, and Wong WW. Measurement of body water by multifrequence bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy in a multiethnic pediatric population. Am J Clin Nutr 70: 847–853, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Foster KR and Lukaski HC. Whole-body impedance—what does it measure? Am J Clin Nutr 64: 388–396, 1996.
  15. Gallagher D, Belmonte D, Deurenberg P, Wang Z, Krasnow N, Pi- Sunyer FX, and Heymsfield SB. Organ-tissue mass measurement allows modeling of REE and metabolically active tissue mass. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 275: E249–E258, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Guida B, De Nicola L, Pecoraro P, Trio R, Di Paola F, Iodice C, and Bellizzi V. Abnormalities of bioimpedance measures in overweight, and obese hemodialyzed. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 25: 265–272, 2001.[Medline]
  17. Horlick M, Arpadi SM, Bethel J, Wang J, Moye J Jr, Cuff P, Pierson RN Jr, and Kotler D. Bioelectrical impedance analysis models for prediction of total body water and fat-free mass in healthy and HIV-infected children and adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr 76: 991–999, 2002.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Kushner RF, de Vries PMJM, and Gudivaka R. Use of bioimpedance analysis measurements in the clinical management of patients undergoing dialysis. Am J Clin Nutr 64: 503–509, 1996.
  19. Kushner RF. Bioelectrical impedance analysis: a review of principles, and applications. J Am Coll Nutr 11: 199–209, 1992.[Abstract]
  20. Mitatani M, Kanehisa H, Masuo M, Ito Y, and Fukunaga T. Validity of estimating limb muscle volume by bioelectrical impedance. J Appl Physiol 91: 386–394, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Nyboer J. Electrical Impedance Plethysmography (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1970.
  22. Organ LW, Bradham GB, Gore DT, and Lozier SL. Segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis: theory and application of a new technique. J Appl Physiol 77: 98–112, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Patterson RP. Fundamentals of impedance cardiography. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 8: 16–18, 1989.[Medline]
  24. Pierson RN Jr, Wang J, Colt EW, and Neumann P. Body composition measurements in normal man: the potassium, sodium, sulfate and tritium spaces in 58 adults. J Chronic Dis 35: 419–428, 1982.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  25. Scharfetter H, Hartinger P, Hinghofer-Szalkay H, and Hutten H. Model of artifacts produced by stray capacitance during whole body or segmental bioimpedance spectroscope. Physiol Meas 19: 247–261, 1998.[Medline]
  26. Schoeller DA. Hydrometry. In: Human Body Composition, edited by Roche AF, Heymsfield SB, and Lohman TG. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996, p. 25–44.
  27. Thomas BJ, Ward LC, and Cornish BH:. Bioimpedance spectrometry in the determination of body water compartments: accuracy, and clinical significance. Appl Radiat Isot 49: 447–455 1998.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  28. Thomas LD, Vander Velde D, and Schloerb PR. Optimum doses of deuterium oxide and sodium bromide for the determination of total body water and extracellular fluid. J Pharm Biomed Anal 9: 581–584, 1991.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  29. Wagner DR and Heyward VH. Measures of body composition in blacks, and whites: a comparative review. Am J Clin Nutr 71: 1392–1402, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Wang Z, Zhu S, Wang J, Pierson RN Jr, and Heymsfield SB. Whole-body skeletal muscle mass: development and validation of total-body potassium prediction models. Am J Clin Nutr 77: 76–82, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Xitron Technologies. Operating Manual. Xitron 4200 Bio-impedance Spectrum Analysis System. San Diego, CA: Xitron Technologies, 1997.
  32. Zhu F, Schneditz D, and Levin NW. Sum of segmental bioimpedance analysis during ultrafiltration and hemodialysis reduces sensitivity to change in body position. Kidney Int 56: 692–699, 1999.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  33. Zhu F, Schneditz D, Wang E, and Levin NW. Dynamics of segmental extracellular volumes during changes in body position by bioimpedance analysis. J Appl Physiol 85: 497–504, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Zhu F, Schneditz D, Wang E, Martin K, Morris AT, and Levin NW. Validation of changes in extracellular volume measured during hemodialysis using a segmental bioimpedance technique. ASAIO J 44: 541–545, 1998.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
A. Stahn, E. Terblanche, and G. Strobel
Modeling upper and lower limb muscle volume by bioelectrical impedance analysis
J Appl Physiol, October 1, 2007; 103(4): 1428 - 1435.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/2/717    most recent
00669.2005v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zhu, F.
Right arrow Articles by Levin, N. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zhu, F.
Right arrow Articles by Levin, N. W.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2006 by the American Physiological Society.