Abstract:Aims
In this study, we aimed to investigate whether body composition analysis (BCA) derived from bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) could be used to monitor the hydration status of patients with acute heart failure (AHF) during intensified diuretic therapy.
Methods and results
This observational, single‐centre study involved a novel, validated eight‐electrode segmental body composition analyser to perform BCA derived from BIVA with an alternating current of 100 μA at frequencies of 5, 7.5, 50, and … Show more
“…Such dynamic change might reflect that related to the congestion status of HF patients during their clinical in-hospital and out-of-hospital course. Similar results were from De Ieso et al [ 43 ] in patients with ADHF: improvement in PhA was observed during the hospital stay after intensified diuretic therapy.…”
Section: Clinical and Diagnostic Value In Congestion Statussupporting
confidence: 89%
“…PhA remained stable at 3-month f.u. 0.7° De Ieso et al 2021 [ 43 ] 142 ADHF Observational Multi-frequency medical whole-body composition analyser (Seca® mBCA 515, Hamburg, Germany) N/A Mean phase angle increased from 3.61 ± 0.82° to 3.83 ± 0.74° from admission to discharge 0.22° Gastelurrutia et al 2011[ 44 ] 54 Stable and unstable HF Observational Imp DF50 (ImpediMed, Queensland, Australia). 50 kHz frequency and 800 microA current N/A Male: PhA: Stable HF 4.5 ± 0.8° vs. unstable HF 3.8 ± 0.7°, p = 0.02 Female: PhA: Stable HF 3.9 ± 0.8° vs. unstable HF 3.9 ± 0.9°, p = 0.96 Male 0.7° Female 0° Massari et al 2016 [ 6 ] 900 487 ADHF and 413 CHF Retrospective CardioEFG, Akern RJL Systems, Florence, Italy Tetrapolar impedance plethysmograph, 50 kHz alternating sinusoidal current N/A Phase Angle ADHF 4.7 ± 1.2° vs. CHF 5.5 ± 1.3° ADHF Phase Angle With peripheral edema: 4.2 ± 1.0° vs. without peripheral edema: 5.1 ± 1.2, p < 0.01 CHF Phase Angle With peripheral edema: 4.5 ± 1.0° vs. without peripheral edema: 5.6 ± 1.2, p < 0.01 ADHF vs. CHF 0.8° ADHF 0.9° CHF 1.1° Castillo Martínez et al 2007 [ 45 ] 243 140 (101 in NYHA I–II and 39 in III–IV) with HFrEF 103 (67 in NYHA I–II and 36 in II–IV) with HFpEF.…”
Section: Bioelectrical Phase Angle: Definition and Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PhA could effectively detect the changes in fluid overload of patients with acute decompensated HF (ADHF, i.e. those with overt symptoms -breathlessness, ankle swelling, and fatigue -or signs -elevated jugular venous pressure, pulmonary crackles, and peripheral oedema of acute decompensation from De Ieso et al [43] in patients with ADHF: improvement in PhA was observed during the hospital stay after intensified diuretic therapy.…”
Section: Clinical and Diagnostic Value In Congestion Statusmentioning
The most challenging feature of heart failure (HF) still remains the evaluation of congestion. Residual congestion at discharge and the difficulties in perfectly dosing therapies in order to balance the hydration status of the patient are the most worrisome issues when dealing with HF.
The use of bioimpedance vector analysis (BIVA) might promote a different approach in the general management of patients with HF. BIVA is a reliable, fast, bedside tool able to assess the congestion status. It proved to be helpful to physicians for diagnosing congestive status, managing therapies, and providing prognostic information in the setting of HF.
Bioelectrical Phase Angle (PhA) – as derived from equations related to the parameters of BIVA – recently surged as a possible biomarker for patients with HF. Studies provided data about the application of PhA in the clinical management and in the overall risk stratification of HF patients.
Basically, the use of PhA might be considered as a holistic evaluation of patients with HF which includes the need for a multiparametric approach able to effectively depict the clinical status of patients. There is no definite biomarker able to comprehensively describe and identify all the features of HF patient, but scores based on molecules/techniques able to explore the different pathogenetic mechanisms of HF are desirable.
The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of literature related to PhA role in HF and the impact of this biomarker on clinical management and risk stratification of HF patients.
“…Such dynamic change might reflect that related to the congestion status of HF patients during their clinical in-hospital and out-of-hospital course. Similar results were from De Ieso et al [ 43 ] in patients with ADHF: improvement in PhA was observed during the hospital stay after intensified diuretic therapy.…”
Section: Clinical and Diagnostic Value In Congestion Statussupporting
confidence: 89%
“…PhA remained stable at 3-month f.u. 0.7° De Ieso et al 2021 [ 43 ] 142 ADHF Observational Multi-frequency medical whole-body composition analyser (Seca® mBCA 515, Hamburg, Germany) N/A Mean phase angle increased from 3.61 ± 0.82° to 3.83 ± 0.74° from admission to discharge 0.22° Gastelurrutia et al 2011[ 44 ] 54 Stable and unstable HF Observational Imp DF50 (ImpediMed, Queensland, Australia). 50 kHz frequency and 800 microA current N/A Male: PhA: Stable HF 4.5 ± 0.8° vs. unstable HF 3.8 ± 0.7°, p = 0.02 Female: PhA: Stable HF 3.9 ± 0.8° vs. unstable HF 3.9 ± 0.9°, p = 0.96 Male 0.7° Female 0° Massari et al 2016 [ 6 ] 900 487 ADHF and 413 CHF Retrospective CardioEFG, Akern RJL Systems, Florence, Italy Tetrapolar impedance plethysmograph, 50 kHz alternating sinusoidal current N/A Phase Angle ADHF 4.7 ± 1.2° vs. CHF 5.5 ± 1.3° ADHF Phase Angle With peripheral edema: 4.2 ± 1.0° vs. without peripheral edema: 5.1 ± 1.2, p < 0.01 CHF Phase Angle With peripheral edema: 4.5 ± 1.0° vs. without peripheral edema: 5.6 ± 1.2, p < 0.01 ADHF vs. CHF 0.8° ADHF 0.9° CHF 1.1° Castillo Martínez et al 2007 [ 45 ] 243 140 (101 in NYHA I–II and 39 in III–IV) with HFrEF 103 (67 in NYHA I–II and 36 in II–IV) with HFpEF.…”
Section: Bioelectrical Phase Angle: Definition and Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PhA could effectively detect the changes in fluid overload of patients with acute decompensated HF (ADHF, i.e. those with overt symptoms -breathlessness, ankle swelling, and fatigue -or signs -elevated jugular venous pressure, pulmonary crackles, and peripheral oedema of acute decompensation from De Ieso et al [43] in patients with ADHF: improvement in PhA was observed during the hospital stay after intensified diuretic therapy.…”
Section: Clinical and Diagnostic Value In Congestion Statusmentioning
The most challenging feature of heart failure (HF) still remains the evaluation of congestion. Residual congestion at discharge and the difficulties in perfectly dosing therapies in order to balance the hydration status of the patient are the most worrisome issues when dealing with HF.
The use of bioimpedance vector analysis (BIVA) might promote a different approach in the general management of patients with HF. BIVA is a reliable, fast, bedside tool able to assess the congestion status. It proved to be helpful to physicians for diagnosing congestive status, managing therapies, and providing prognostic information in the setting of HF.
Bioelectrical Phase Angle (PhA) – as derived from equations related to the parameters of BIVA – recently surged as a possible biomarker for patients with HF. Studies provided data about the application of PhA in the clinical management and in the overall risk stratification of HF patients.
Basically, the use of PhA might be considered as a holistic evaluation of patients with HF which includes the need for a multiparametric approach able to effectively depict the clinical status of patients. There is no definite biomarker able to comprehensively describe and identify all the features of HF patient, but scores based on molecules/techniques able to explore the different pathogenetic mechanisms of HF are desirable.
The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of literature related to PhA role in HF and the impact of this biomarker on clinical management and risk stratification of HF patients.
“…It is a non-invasive method that allows the analysis of the body composition in a few seconds thanks to the detection of the impedance, or the “resistance” opposed by the body to the passage of an alternating electric current of very low intensity (400 µÅ) and high frequency (50 kHz). It is a safe, fast and reproducible method that can be easily integrated into clinical practice to detect patients with congestion (even subclinical) and monitor disease progression and decongestion with diuretic therapy [ 41 ].…”
Section: Malnutrition and Evaluation Of The Nutritional Statusmentioning
Gastrointestinal involvement is a common clinical feature of patients with systemic amyloidosis. This condition is responsible for invalidating gastrointestinal symptoms, a significant macro and micronutrient deficit, and is a marker of disease severity. Gastrointestinal involvement should be actively sought in patients with systemic amyloidosis, while its diagnosis is challenging in patients with isolated gastrointestinal symptoms. The nutritional status in systemic amyloidosis plays an essential role in the clinical course and is considered a significant prognostic factor. However, the definition of nutritional status is still challenging due to the lack of internationally accepted thresholds for anthropometric and biochemical variables, especially in specific populations such as those with systemic amyloidosis. This review aims to elucidate the fundamental steps for nutritional assessment by using clinical and instrumental tools for better prognostic stratification and patient management regarding quality of life and outcomes.
“…In patients with acute HF, BIA reliably reflects changes in hydration status, correlates with echocardiographic parameters, natriuretic peptide levels, and predicts hospital length of stay. However, BIA-guided decongestive therapy has not shown to be superior compared to standard care with respect to outcome [69][70][71][72]. In critically ill patients, the accuracy of BIA as a measure of hydration status remains unclear at this time [73].…”
Fluid overload has been associated with morbidity and mortality in various clinical scenarios including heart failure and critical illness. It exerts pathologic sequelae in almost all the organ systems. Proper management of patients with fluid overload requires knowledge of the underlying pathophysiology, objective evaluation of volume status, selection of appropriate therapeutic options, and maintenance and modulation of tissue perfusion. There are several methods to appraise volume status but none without limitations. In this review, we discuss the diagnostic utility, prognostic significance, and shortcomings of various bedside tools in the detection of fluid overload and evaluation of hemodynamic status. These include clinical examination, biomarkers, blood volume assessment, bioimpedance analysis, point-of-care ultrasound, and remote pulmonary pressure monitoring. In our opinion, clinicians must adopt a multiparametric approach offsetting the limitations of individual methods to formulate a management plan tailored to patients’ needs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.