Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40295223›Full record

Observational studyHemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis2025

Hemodynamic Monitoring During Hemodialysis Using Bioimpedance: A Comparison of Changes in Resistance Between Different Body Segments.

Melanie K Schoutteten, Patrick van der Heijden, Astrid D H Brys, Bart De Moor, Chris van Hoof, Geert Langereis, Jeroen P Kooman, Pieter M Vandervoort

Abstract readObservational StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Melanie K SchouttetenHasselt University, Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Limburg Clinical Research Center/Mobile Health Unit, Diepenbeek, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7217-2405
Patrick van der HeijdenDepartment of Health Research, Imec the Netherlands/Holst Center, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Astrid D H BrysDepartment of Geriatrics, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Bart De MoorHasselt University, Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Limburg Clinical Research Center/Mobile Health Unit, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Chris van HoofDepartment of Health Research, Imec the Netherlands/Holst Center, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Geert LangereisDepartment of Health Research, Imec the Netherlands/Holst Center, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jeroen P KoomanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Pieter M VandervoortHasselt University, Faculty of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Limburg Clinical Research Center/Mobile Health Unit, Diepenbeek, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrevention of hemodynamic complications during hemodialysis remains challenging. Although whole body bioimpedance is well established in fluid status assessment, its use for dynamic or continuous recordings is limited. A segmental approach may serve this purpose better. This study investigates which body segment is best targeted to measure bioimpedance for hemodynamic monitoring.

methodsIn this observational study, serial bioimpedance measurements were conducted on the whole body, lower leg, upper arm, and thorax of 15 patients during two hemodialysis sessions. The resistance component of bioimpedance was used to investigate the relationship with changes in volume and systolic blood pressure (SBP).

findingsPredialysis to postdialysis changes in relative resistance between the two sessions revealed the lowest intraclass correlation coefficient for upper arm (0.023) and the highest for thoracic resistance (0.728). Correlation between ultrafiltration volume and relative resistance was comparable between upper arm and thoracic segment (0.538 [0.447-0.618] and 0.537 [0.446-0.617], both p < 0.001, respectively) and the highest for whole-body and lower leg (0.697 [0.63-0.754] and 0.670 [0.598-0.731], both p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the correlation between changes in SBP and relative resistance was the highest in the thoracic segment (-0.33 [-0.432 to -0.219], p < 0.001) and the lowest for whole body measurements (-0.154 [-0.269 to -0.036], p = 0.01). In addition, multiple regression analysis indicated thoracic resistance as the best predictor for changes in SBP (β = -0.261 [-0.353 to -0.126], p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that the thorax is the most suitable region for segmental bioimpedance measurements to assess hemodynamic parameters. Thoracic bioimpedance may innovate the hemodynamic monitoring of hemodialysis patients.

Indexed as

Electric ImpedanceHemodynamic MonitoringHemodynamicsRenal DialysisAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedbioimpedanceblood pressurehemodialysisthoracic

Identifiers

PMID40295223
PMCPMC12531922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.