Volume Estimates in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients by the Watson Equation and Bioimpedance Spectroscopy and the Impact on the Kt/Vurea calculation.

Abstract

Background:Accurate assessment of total body water (TBW) is essential for the evaluation of dialysis adequacy (Kt/Vurea). The Watson formula, which is recommended for the calculation of TBW, was derived in healthy volunteers thereby leading to potentially inaccurate TBW estimates in maintenance hemodialysis recipients. Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) may be a robust alternative for the measurement of TBW in hemodialysis recipients.Objectives:The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Watson formula–derived TBW estimates as compared with TBW measured with BIS. Second, we aimed to identify the anthropometric characteristics that are most likely to generate inaccuracy when using the Watson formula to calculate TBW. Finally, we derived novel anthropometric equations for the more accurate estimation of TBW.Design and Setting:This was a cross-sectional study of prevalent in-center HD patients at St Michael’s Hospital.Patients:One hundred eighty-four hemodialysis patients (109 men and 75 women) were evaluated in this study.Measurements:Anthropometric measurements including weight, height, waist circumference, midarm circumference, and 4-site skinfold (biceps, triceps, subscapular, and suprailiac) thickness were measured; fat mass was measured using the formula by Durnin and Womersley. We measured TBW by BIS using the Body Composition Monitor (Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg, Germany).Methods:We used the Bland-Altman method to calculate the difference between the TBW derived from the Watson method and the BIS. To derive new equations for TBW estimation, Pearson’s correlation coefficients between BIS-TBW (the reference test) and other variables were examined. We used the least squares regression analysis to develop parsimonious equations to predict TBW.Results:TBW values based on the Watson method had a high correlation with BIS-TBW (correlation coefficients = 0.87 and P < .001). Despite the high correlation, the Watson formula overestimated TBW by 5.1 (4.5-5.8) liters and 3.8 (3.0-4.5) liters, in men and women, respectively. Higher fat mass and waist circumference (general and abdominal obesity) were correlated with the greater TBW overestimation by the Watson formula. We created separate equations for men and women based on weight and waist circumference.Limitations:The main limitation of our study was the lack of an external validation for our novel estimating equation. Furthermore, though BIS has been validated against traditional reference standards, our assumption that it represents the “gold standard” for body compartment assessment may be flawed.Conclusions:The Watson formula generally overestimates TBW in chronic dialysis recipients, particularly in patients with the highest waist circumference. Widespread reliance on the Watson formula for derivation of TBW may lead to the underestimation of Kt/Vurea..