TO ASSESS AND COMPARE THE COMPLICATIONS DURING HEMODIALYSIS USING TWO METHODS TO SET THE DRY BODY WEIGHT- BIOELECTRICAL IMPEDENCE ANALYSIS (BIA) TECHNIQUE AND CONVENTIONAL METHOD - ORIGINAL ARTICLE

DR GURLEEN CHAHAL; DR TIMOTHY RAJAMANICKAM; DR JASMINE DAS

Volume : VII, Issue : III, March - 2018

TO ASSESS AND COMPARE THE COMPLICATIONS DURING HEMODIALYSIS USING TWO METHODS TO SET THE DRY BODY WEIGHT- BIOELECTRICAL IMPEDENCE ANALYSIS (BIA) TECHNIQUE AND CONVENTIONAL METHOD - ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Dr Gurleen Chahal, Dr Timothy Rajamanickam, Dr Jasmine Das

Abstract :

Introduction: Establishment of accurate dry weight is pivotal in maintaining quality of life of patients receiving hemodialysis treatment. Achieving “normohydration” or appropriate dry weight is associated with longer survival of dialysis patients. Conventional Method is based on patient’s clinical signs whereas Bioelectrical impedence analysis (BIA) is a noninvasive and simple technique to determine dry weight.

Objectives: To assess and compare the complications during hemodialysis using two methods to set the dry weight– Bioelectrical Impedence Analysis (BIA) technique and Conventional Method.

Methods: Randomized controlled study conducted over one year on patients with ESRD on Maintenance Hemodialysis. Patients were allocated in two groups. Dry weight of patients in Group I was set by BIA technique and in Group II by conventional method. Patients were observed during hemodialysis session for complications pertaining to both hypovolumia and hypervolumia and complications in the two groups were compared.

Results: 60 patients (Male:Female ratio of 2:1), mean age of 57±11.54yrs, were randomly divided in two groups. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar as far as age, sex, height, duration on hemodialysis, associated history of DM–2 and HTN was concerned. Hypovolumic complications were seen in fewer patients in BIA group (40%) as compared to conventional group (56.7%). Number of event free dialysis was more in BIA group (28 patients (93.4%) in BIA group had more than 4 event free dialysis as compared to 20 (66.7%) patients in conventional group). Overall, the difference in complication rate between the two groups was not statistically significant. There was statistically significant drop in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in BIA group post–HD (p<0.001) but the same was not seen in conventional group.

Conclusion: In BIA group, the overall complication rate was less and patients had higher number of event free dialysis sessions in comparison to conventional group, although the difference was not statistically significant. The reduction in blood pressure (both systolic and diastolic) post–HD was significant in BIA group but not in conventional group. Thus, BIA is comparable to conventional method and is a reliable method of setting the dry weight in patients on hemodialysis.