A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Identification of fluid overload in elderly patients with chronic kidney disease using bioimpedance techniques. | LitMetric

Diagnosis of fluid overload (FO) in early stage is essential to manage fluid balance of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the identification of fluid status in patients with CKD is largely dependent on the physician's clinical acumen. The ratio of fluid overload to extracellular volume (FO/ECV) has been used as a reference to assess fluid status. The primary aim of this study was to compare FO/ECV with other bioimpedance methods and clinical assessments in patients with CKD. Whole body ECV, intracellular volume (ICV), total body water (TBW), and calf normalized resistivity (CNR) were measured (Hydra 4200). Thresholds of FO utilizing CNR and ECV/TBW were derived by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis based on data from pooled patients with CKD and healthy subjects (HSs). Clinical assessments of FO in patients with CKD were performed by nephrologists. Patients with CKD (stage 3 and stage 4) ( = 50) and HSs ( = 189) were studied. The thresholds of FO were ≤14.3 (10 Ωm/kg) for females and ≤13.1 (10 Ωm/kg) for males using CNR and ≥0.445 in females and ≥0.434 in males using ECV/TBW. FO was diagnosed in 78%, 62%, and 52% of patients with CKD by CNR, FO/ECV, and ECV/TBW, respectively, whereas only 24% of patients with CKD were diagnosed to be FO by clinical assessment. The proportion of FO in patients with nondialysis CKD was largely underestimated by clinical assessment compared with FO/ECV, CNR, and ECV/TBW. CNR and FO/ECV methods were more sensitive than ECV/TBW in identifying fluid overload in these patients with CKD. We found that fluid overload (FO) in patients with nondialysis CKD was largely underestimated by clinical assessment compared with bioimpedance methods, which was majorly due to lack of appropriate techniques to assess FO. In addition, although degree of FO by bioimpedance markers positively correlated with the age in healthy subjects (HSs), no difference was observed in the three hydration markers between groups of 50 ≤ age <70 yr and age ≥70 yr in the patients with CKD.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00645.2021DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

patients ckd
32
fluid overload
20
patients
12
clinical assessment
12
ckd
11
identification fluid
8
patients chronic
8
chronic kidney
8
kidney disease
8
fluid status
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!