ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with fluid retention, which increases total body water (TBW) and leads to changes in intracellular water (ICW) and extracellular water (ECW). This complicates accurate assessments of body composition. Analysis of bioelectrical impedance may improve the accuracy of evaluation in CKD patients and multiple machines and technologies are available. We compared body composition by bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) against multi-frequency bioimpedance analysis (BIA) in a multi-ethnic Asian population of stable, non-dialysis CKD patients. METHODS: We recruited 98 stable CKD patients comprising 54.1% men and 70.4% Chinese, 9.2% Malay, 13.3% Indian, and 8.2% other ethnicities. Stability was defined as no variation in serum creatinine > 20% over three months. Patients underwent BIS analyses using a Fresenius body composition monitor, while BIA analyses employed a Bodystat Quadscan 4000. RESULTS: Mean TBW values by BIS and BIA were 33.6 ± 7.2 L and 38.3 ± 7.4 L; mean ECW values were 15.8 ± 3.2 L and 16.9 ± 2.7 L; and mean ICW values were 17.9 ± 4.3 L and 21.0 ± 4.9 L, respectively. Mean differences for TBW were 4.6 ± 1.9 L (P < 0.001), for ECW they were 1.2 ± 0.5 L (P < 0.001), and for ICW they were 3.2 ±1.8 L (P < 0.001). BIA and BIS measurements were highly correlated: TBW r = 0.970, ECW r = 0.994, and ICW r = 0.926. Compared with BIA, BIS assessments of fluid overload appeared to be more associated with biochemical and clinical indicators. CONCLUSION: Although both BIA and BIS can be used for body water assessment, clinicians should be aware of biases that exist between bioimpedance techniques. The values of body water assessments in our study were higher in BIA than in BIS. Ethnicity, sex, body mass index, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were associated with these biases.
ABSTRACT
The anticipated increase in the prevalence and incidence of type 2 diabetes in Asia, and its associated cardiovascular-renal complications, will place a significant burden on patients, caregivers, and society. Despite the proven effectiveness of lipid management in reducing these complications, there are major treatment gaps, especially in Asian patients with young-onset diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Recent international guidelines recommended the adoption of absolute risk estimation of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease to guide treatment intensity. These recommendations replaced the previous strategy of using low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets to guide initiation and intensification of lipid lowering, albeit still widely practiced in Asia. The latest guidelines also highlight the high risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) for people with diabetes, who should be protected with statins, except for young patients without other risk factors, who will need yearly monitoring of blood lipid levels. Given the propensity of Asian patients with diabetes to develop CKD and the amplifying effect of CKD on ASCVD, the use of statins in Asian patients is particularly important. Due to interethnic differences in drug metabolism, rosuvastatin, which is largely cleared by the kidney, should be prescribed in low dosages (5-10 mg daily) in Asian populations. Conversely, epidemiological and experimental data confirm pleotropic and organ-protective effects of atorvastatin, with proven safety in Asian populations within a daily dose range of 10-40 mg. Thus, there is a need for Asian countries to review and align their lipid-lowering treatment guidelines to reduce the substantial burden of diabetes in the Asian region.