Reliability of bioelectric impedance analysis as a method of nutritional monitoring in cirrhosis with ascites

Bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) was carried out in 55 cirrhotic patients (32 with and 23 without ascites) and 20 healthy controls with the aim of evaluating its usefulness in cirrhosis. Furthermore, in 13 of the ascitic patients BIA was performed immediately before and 24 hours after paracentes...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inGastroenterología y hepatología Vol. 18; no. 7; p. 359
Main Authors Cabré, E, de León, R, Planas, R, Bertrán, X, Domènech, E, Gassull, M A
Format Journal Article
LanguageSpanish
Published Spain 01.08.1995
Subjects
Ascites - therapy
Body Composition
Body Weight
Electric Impedance
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Female
Humans
Liver Cirrhosis
Male
Middle Aged
Monitoring, Physiologic
Nutritional Status
Punctures
Regression Analysis
Reproducibility of Results
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:Bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) was carried out in 55 cirrhotic patients (32 with and 23 without ascites) and 20 healthy controls with the aim of evaluating its usefulness in cirrhosis. Furthermore, in 13 of the ascitic patients BIA was performed immediately before and 24 hours after paracentesis. No differences were observed among the three groups in either resistance or the values of total body water (TBW), lean body mass (LBM) and fatty body mass (FBM) estimated by BIA. On the other hand, reactance and the phase angle were lower in cirrhotic patients. Likewise, the percentage of body cell mass (BCM) was lower in ascitic patients than in the non ascitic patients and the controls (37.7 +/- 1.2 vs 42.3 +/- 1.2 vs 45.5 +/- 1.6%; p = 0.0003). Mid-arm muscle circumference was correlated with TBW and LBM in all the groups and with only BCM in the controls and those without ascites. In general, the precision of the regression lines was lower in the ascitic patients than in the non ascitic patients and controls. TBW decreased following paracentesis (28.3 +/- 1.7 vs 30.3 +/- 2.0 kg; p = 0.008) but this decrease did not correspond with the volume of ascitic fluid obtained in any case. The mean BCM did not change with paracentesis although individual differences ranged between -8.0 and +11.2% (CI 95%). It is concluded that BIA is not a reliable method for nutrition evaluation in cirrhotic patients with ascites in clinical practice and that the anthropometric parameters are still preferable in these cases.
ISSN:0210-5705