TY - JOUR T1 - Reliability of bioelectrical impedance analysis in the evaluation of the nutritional status of hemodialysis patients - a comparison with Mini Nutritional Assessment. AU - Erdoğan,E, AU - Tutal,E, AU - Uyar,M E, AU - Bal,Z, AU - Demirci,B G, AU - Sayın,B, AU - Sezer,S, PY - 2013/12/10/entrez PY - 2013/12/10/pubmed PY - 2014/8/1/medline SP - 3485 EP - 8 JF - Transplantation proceedings JO - Transplant Proc VL - 45 IS - 10 N2 - INTRODUCTION: Protein-energy wasting (PEW) is a strong predictive factor for morbidity and mortality in patients who have end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) is an important and confirmed tool to evaluate PEW that has been recommended by many guidelines. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a noninvasive technique for assessing body composition. The aim of the present study was to analyze the reliability of BIA in malnutrition diagnosis by comparing it with standard MNA in a group of 100 ESRD patients. METHODS: One hundred ESRD patients who were medically stable and under dialysis treatment for at least 6 months were enrolled to the study. Monthly assessed serum creatinine, albumin, C-reactive protein (CRP), and lipid profiles from the last 6 months prior to the study were retrospectively collected. A standard Full-MNA and body composition analyses were applied to all patients. Body compositions were analyzed with the BIA technique using the Body Composition Analyzer (Tanita BC-420 MA; Tanita, Tokyo, Japan). Patients were classified into three groups according to MNA scores as PEW (n = 15, score <17), moderate PEW or risk group (n = 49, score 17-23.5), and well-nourished (n = 36, score ≥ 24) patients. RESULTS: Mean duration of maintenance hemodialysis treatment was significantly shorter in the PEW group compared to both of the other groups described (P = .015). Well-nourished and risk groups had lower CRP and higher albumin levels compared to PEW patients; however, these values were statistically similar in these two groups (P = .018, .01, respectively). According to BIA findings, well-nourished patients had the highest fat ratio, fat mass, muscle mass, visceral fat mass, and fat-free mass compared to both moderate the PEW/risk and the PEW groups (P < .05). Risk group patients also had higher muscle mass, visceral fat mass, and fat-free mass values compared to the PEW group (P < .05). A correlation analysis revealed that MNA scores were positively correlated with albumin (P = .005), creatinine (P = .049), fat mass (P = .045), muscle mass (P = .001), visceral fat ratio (P = .007), and BMI (P = .047) and in negative correlation with CRP (r = -0.357, P = .0001) levels. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend BIA as a complementary diagnostic tool to evaluate nutritional status of ESRD along with MNA, anthropometric measures, and classical biochemical markers. SN - 1873-2623 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24314938/Reliability_of_bioelectrical_impedance_analysis_in_the_evaluation_of_the_nutritional_status_of_hemodialysis_patients___a_comparison_with_Mini_Nutritional_Assessment_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -