Affiliation:
1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Abstract
Background and Objective: Bioimpedance technologies are increasingly used to determine fluid status in patients with chronic kidney disease and those with end-stage kidney disease on dialysis. We aimed to determine whether this technology improves clinical outcomes as compared with usual care. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials, comparing fluid management guided by bioimpedance technologies to standard of care in patients with chronic kidney disease. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control, all-cause hospitalization, major adverse cardiovascular events, and change in left ventricular mass index. Results: Our search identified 819 citations of which 12 randomized controlled trials were included (2420 patients). No studies of non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 55 years and mean follow-up was 1 year. There was a statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between both arms studied (risk ratio [RR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44, 0.99). Better blood pressure control was observed in the bioimpedance arm of the included articles, weighted mean differences (WMD) −3.13 mm Hg (95% CI: −5.73, −0.53 mm Hg) for systolic blood pressure and WMD −2.50 mm Hg (95% CI: −4.36, −0.64 mm Hg) for diastolic blood pressure. No difference was observed concerning the other outcomes. Conclusions: Among patients on maintenance dialysis, bioimpedance-guided volume management showed decreased all-cause mortality and blood pressure but no significant difference in all-cause hospitalization, major adverse cardiac event, or change in left ventricular mass index. This may be due to a younger population sample than previous articles. Moreover, our study identified a knowledge gap by highlighting the lack of studies evaluating this technology in non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients.