Key result
Bioelectrical impedance analysis reveals higher extracellular water in decompensated HF compared to controls.
Why the study?
Limited studies have evaluated the utility of bioelectrical impedance analysis as a marker of fluid status in patients with congestive heart failure.
Does bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) detect differences in fluid status markers (TBW, ECW, resistance) between patients with decompensated congestive heart failure and controls?
Meta-Analysis (n=1,046)
Does bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) detect differences in fluid status markers (TBW, ECW, resistance) between patients with decompensated congestive heart failure and controls?
Effect estimate: MD 1.42 (TBW), MD 1.62 (ECW) (95% CI -0.44-3.27 (TBW), 0.82-2.42 (ECW))
p-value: p=0.13 (TBW), <0.0001 (ECW)
Bioelectrical impedance analysis identifies significantly higher extracellular water and lower resistance in patients with decompensated heart failure compared to controls, supporting its potential utility as a marker of fluid status.
Supports BIA for detecting extracellular fluid overload in decompensated HF; extends evidence for impedance metrics beyond total body water.
Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a method that measures electrical currents conducted through water, which assesses fluid status by measuring extracellular water (ECW), total body water (TBW), and resistance (R). Limited studies are done to evaluate the utility of BIA in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), and therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this. A comprehensive literature search was performed at Medline and Embase until March 2022. Our primary outcome was a comparison of TBW and ECW between patients with CHF and controls. Our secondary outcome was to compare R between the groups. All analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. Six studies with 1,046 patients met our inclusion criteria. Out of 1,046 patients, 526 had CHF and 538 had no CHF. Among patients with CHF, all 526 had decompensated CHF. There was no significant difference in TBW between patients with heart failure and the control group (mean deviation (MD) = 1.42 (-0.44-3.27), percent of variation (I2) = 0%, p = 0.13). ECW was significantly higher with an assessment of BIA in heart failure patients compared to patients in the control group (MD = 1.62 (0.82-2.42), I2 = 0%, p < 0.0001). Resistance of extracellular fluid was significantly lower in the heart failure group (MD = -45.64 (-72.88--18.41), I2 = 83%, p = 0.001). Publication bias was deferred as the number of included studies was less than 10. BIA can be helpful in ambulatory and inpatient setting to identify patients' fluid status, which can improve outcomes. However, larger prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the usefulness of BIA in the CHF population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hanna et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Congestive heart failure (n=1,046). Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) vs. Controls (no CHF) was evaluated on Comparison of total body water (TBW) and extracellular water (ECW) (MD 1.42 (TBW), MD 1.62 (ECW), 95% CI -0.44-3.27 (TBW), 0.82-2.42 (ECW), p=0.13 (TBW), <0.0001 (ECW)). Bioelectrical impedance analysis revealed significantly higher extracellular water (MD 1.62; 95% CI 0.82-2.42; p<0.0001) in patients with decompensated heart failure compared to controls.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: