Application of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Nutritional Management of Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Body composition measurement plays an important role in the nutritional diagnosis and treatment of diseases. In the past 30 years, the detection of body composition based on bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has been widely used and explored in a variety of diseases. With the development of technology, bioelectrical impedance analysis has gradually developed from single-frequency BIA (SF-BIA) to multi-frequency BIA (multi-frequency BIA, MF-BIA) and over a range of frequencies (bioimpedance spectroscopy, BIS). As the clinical significance of nutrition management in chronic kidney disease has gradually become prominent, body composition measurement by BIA has been favored by nephrologists and nutritionists. In the past 20 years, there have been many studies on the application of BIA in patients with CKD. This review describes and summarizes the latest research results of BIA in nutritional management of patients with CKD including pre-dialysis, hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and kidney transplantation, in order to provide reference for the application and research of BIA in nutritional management of chronic kidney disease in the future.

Related collections

Most cited references 116

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Nutrition in CKD: 2020 Update

T Alp Ikizler, Jerrilynn Burrowes, Laura D Byham-Gray … (2020)

The National Kidney Foundation's Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) has provided evidence-based guidelines for nutrition in kidney diseases since 1999. Since the publication of the first KDOQI nutrition guideline, there has been a great accumulation of new evidence regarding the management of nutritional aspects of kidney disease and sophistication in the guidelines process. The 2020 update to the KDOQI Clinical Practice Guideline for Nutrition in CKD was developed as a joint effort with the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Academy). It provides comprehensive up-to-date information on the understanding and care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), especially in terms of their metabolic and nutritional milieu for the practicing clinician and allied health care workers. The guideline was expanded to include not only patients with end-stage kidney disease or advanced CKD, but also patients with stages 1-5 CKD who are not receiving dialysis and patients with a functional kidney transplant. The updated guideline statements focus on 6 primary areas: nutritional assessment, medical nutrition therapy (MNT), dietary protein and energy intake, nutritional supplementation, micronutrients, and electrolytes. The guidelines primarily cover dietary management rather than all possible nutritional interventions. The evidence data and guideline statements were evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. As applicable, each guideline statement is accompanied by rationale/background information, a detailed justification, monitoring and evaluation guidance, implementation considerations, special discussions, and recommendations for future research.

0 comments Cited 365 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Assessment of Body Composition in Health and Disease Using Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) and Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DXA): A Critical Overview

Maurizio Marra, Rosa Sammarco, Antonino De Lorenzo … (2019)

The measurement of body composition (BC) represents a valuable tool to assess nutritional status in health and disease. The most used methods to evaluate BC in the clinical practice are based on bicompartment models and measure, directly or indirectly, fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM). Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (nowadays considered as the reference technique in clinical practice) are extensively used in epidemiological (mainly BIA) and clinical (mainly DXA) settings to evaluate BC. DXA is primarily used for the measurements of bone mineral content (BMC) and density to assess bone health and diagnose osteoporosis in defined anatomical regions (femur and spine). However, total body DXA scans are used to derive a three-compartment BC model, including BMC, FM, and FFM. Both these methods feature some limitations: the accuracy of BIA measurements is reduced when specific predictive equations and standardized measurement protocols are not utilized whereas the limitations of DXA are the safety of repeated measurements (no more than two body scans per year are currently advised), cost, and technical expertise. This review aims to provide useful insights mostly into the use of BC methods in prevention and clinical practice (ambulatory or bedridden patients). We believe that it will stimulate a discussion on the topic and reinvigorate the crucial role of BC evaluation in diagnostic and clinical investigation protocols.

0 comments Cited 94 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition assessment: reflections on accuracy, clinical utility, and standardisation

Leigh Ward (2018)

Bioelectrical impedance analysis is an extremely popular method for assessment of body composition. Despite its wide-spread use over the past thirty years, its accuracy and clinical value is still questioned. Most frequently, criticisms focus on its purported poor absolute accuracy and that different impedance analysers or prediction equations fail to measure body composition identically. This perspective review highlights that the magnitude of errors associated with impedance methods are not dissimilar to those observed for so-called gold standard methods. It is argued that the focus on statistically significant but small differences between methods can obscure operational equivalence and that such differences may be of minor clinical significance. Finally, the need for better standardization of protocols and the need for consensus on what is a minimal clinically important difference between methods is highlighted.