Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine position

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Dupertuis, Yves M.
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Pereira, Amanda Gomes [UNESP], Karsegard, Véronique L., Hemmer, Alexandra, Biolley, Emma, Collet, Tinh-Hai, Genton, Laurence
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.008
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/247713
Resumo: Background & aims: The main source of error in body composition assessment of bedridden patients by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is the electrode inadequacy and placement. As electrocardiogram (ECG) electrodes are often used for BIA measurements, this study aimed to compare three of them with a reference BIA electrode. Methods: BIA was performed sequentially on 24 healthy subjects in the supine position, using 3 different ECG electrodes (3M® Red Dot® 2330; Ambu® BlueSensor 2300; Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C) and the reference electrode (Bianostic AT®) for the BIA device (Nutriguard-M®, Data Input, Germany). Resistance (R), reactance (Xc), phase angle (PhA), appendicular skeletal muscle index (ASMI), fat-free mass index (FFMI) and fat mass percentage (FM%) obtained with the different electrodes were compared using Bland–Altman plots, repeated measures one-way ANOVA and paired t-test. Patient characteristics potentially involved in BIA measurement differences were assessed using linear regression analysis. Results: The study population consisted of 9 men and 15 women, 33% and 47% of whom were overweight, respectively. The measured R was within the physiological range for all men (428–561 Ω) and women (472–678 Ω), regardless of the type of electrodes used. Compared to the reference electrode, the 3M® Red Dot® 2330 and Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C electrodes gave significantly different Xc and PhA values, but only the Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C gave significantly different ASMI, FFMI and FM% at 50 kHz, with biases of −0.2 kg/m2, −0.3 kg/m2 and +1.4%, respectively. The higher the current frequency, the lower was the Xc and PhA measured by the Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C compared to the reference electrode. These measurement differences seemed mainly due to the too small gel area of the Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C (154 mm2) compared to the reference electrode (1311 mm2). Conclusions: The use of electrodes with small gel area affects BIA measurement in the supine position, especially when PhA is used as an indicator of the nutritional status. Therefore, it is essential to specify the type of electrodes and carry out comparative tests before changing consumables for body composition assessment, to ensure BIA measurement reliability in clinical and research settings.
id UNSP_ebcfd9a16bc83ee324bfb7be44e049b6
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/247713
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine positionBioelectrical impedance analysisBody compositionElectrodeFat mass percentageFat-free mass indexNutritional assessmentBackground & aims: The main source of error in body composition assessment of bedridden patients by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is the electrode inadequacy and placement. As electrocardiogram (ECG) electrodes are often used for BIA measurements, this study aimed to compare three of them with a reference BIA electrode. Methods: BIA was performed sequentially on 24 healthy subjects in the supine position, using 3 different ECG electrodes (3M® Red Dot® 2330; Ambu® BlueSensor 2300; Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C) and the reference electrode (Bianostic AT®) for the BIA device (Nutriguard-M®, Data Input, Germany). Resistance (R), reactance (Xc), phase angle (PhA), appendicular skeletal muscle index (ASMI), fat-free mass index (FFMI) and fat mass percentage (FM%) obtained with the different electrodes were compared using Bland–Altman plots, repeated measures one-way ANOVA and paired t-test. Patient characteristics potentially involved in BIA measurement differences were assessed using linear regression analysis. Results: The study population consisted of 9 men and 15 women, 33% and 47% of whom were overweight, respectively. The measured R was within the physiological range for all men (428–561 Ω) and women (472–678 Ω), regardless of the type of electrodes used. Compared to the reference electrode, the 3M® Red Dot® 2330 and Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C electrodes gave significantly different Xc and PhA values, but only the Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C gave significantly different ASMI, FFMI and FM% at 50 kHz, with biases of −0.2 kg/m2, −0.3 kg/m2 and +1.4%, respectively. The higher the current frequency, the lower was the Xc and PhA measured by the Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C compared to the reference electrode. These measurement differences seemed mainly due to the too small gel area of the Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C (154 mm2) compared to the reference electrode (1311 mm2). Conclusions: The use of electrodes with small gel area affects BIA measurement in the supine position, especially when PhA is used as an indicator of the nutritional status. Therefore, it is essential to specify the type of electrodes and carry out comparative tests before changing consumables for body composition assessment, to ensure BIA measurement reliability in clinical and research settings.Hôpitaux Universitaires de GenèveFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Nutrition Unit Service of Endocrinology Diabetology Nutrition and Therapeutic Education Department of Medicine Geneva University HospitalDepartment of Internal Medicine Botucatu Medical School UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista, São PauloDiabetes Centre Faculty of Medicine University of GenevaFaculty of Medicine University of GenevaDepartment of Internal Medicine Botucatu Medical School UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista, São PauloFAPESP: 21554-5Geneva University HospitalUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)University of GenevaDupertuis, Yves M.Pereira, Amanda Gomes [UNESP]Karsegard, Véronique L.Hemmer, AlexandraBiolley, EmmaCollet, Tinh-HaiGenton, Laurence2023-07-29T13:23:45Z2023-07-29T13:23:45Z2022-11-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article2455-2463http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.008Clinical Nutrition, v. 41, n. 11, p. 2455-2463, 2022.1532-19830261-5614http://hdl.handle.net/11449/24771310.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.0082-s2.0-85139318030Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengClinical Nutritioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2023-07-29T13:23:45Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/247713Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462023-07-29T13:23:45Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine position
title Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine position
spellingShingle Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine position
Dupertuis, Yves M.
Bioelectrical impedance analysis
Body composition
Electrode
Fat mass percentage
Fat-free mass index
Nutritional assessment
title_short Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine position
title_full Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine position
title_fullStr Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine position
title_full_unstemmed Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine position
title_sort Influence of the type of electrodes in the assessment of body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis in the supine position
author Dupertuis, Yves M.
author_facet Dupertuis, Yves M.
Pereira, Amanda Gomes [UNESP]
Karsegard, Véronique L.
Hemmer, Alexandra
Biolley, Emma
Collet, Tinh-Hai
Genton, Laurence
author_role author
author2 Pereira, Amanda Gomes [UNESP]
Karsegard, Véronique L.
Hemmer, Alexandra
Biolley, Emma
Collet, Tinh-Hai
Genton, Laurence
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Geneva University Hospital
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
University of Geneva
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Dupertuis, Yves M.
Pereira, Amanda Gomes [UNESP]
Karsegard, Véronique L.
Hemmer, Alexandra
Biolley, Emma
Collet, Tinh-Hai
Genton, Laurence
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Bioelectrical impedance analysis
Body composition
Electrode
Fat mass percentage
Fat-free mass index
Nutritional assessment
topic Bioelectrical impedance analysis
Body composition
Electrode
Fat mass percentage
Fat-free mass index
Nutritional assessment
description Background & aims: The main source of error in body composition assessment of bedridden patients by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is the electrode inadequacy and placement. As electrocardiogram (ECG) electrodes are often used for BIA measurements, this study aimed to compare three of them with a reference BIA electrode. Methods: BIA was performed sequentially on 24 healthy subjects in the supine position, using 3 different ECG electrodes (3M® Red Dot® 2330; Ambu® BlueSensor 2300; Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C) and the reference electrode (Bianostic AT®) for the BIA device (Nutriguard-M®, Data Input, Germany). Resistance (R), reactance (Xc), phase angle (PhA), appendicular skeletal muscle index (ASMI), fat-free mass index (FFMI) and fat mass percentage (FM%) obtained with the different electrodes were compared using Bland–Altman plots, repeated measures one-way ANOVA and paired t-test. Patient characteristics potentially involved in BIA measurement differences were assessed using linear regression analysis. Results: The study population consisted of 9 men and 15 women, 33% and 47% of whom were overweight, respectively. The measured R was within the physiological range for all men (428–561 Ω) and women (472–678 Ω), regardless of the type of electrodes used. Compared to the reference electrode, the 3M® Red Dot® 2330 and Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C electrodes gave significantly different Xc and PhA values, but only the Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C gave significantly different ASMI, FFMI and FM% at 50 kHz, with biases of −0.2 kg/m2, −0.3 kg/m2 and +1.4%, respectively. The higher the current frequency, the lower was the Xc and PhA measured by the Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C compared to the reference electrode. These measurement differences seemed mainly due to the too small gel area of the Ambu® BlueSensor SU-00-C (154 mm2) compared to the reference electrode (1311 mm2). Conclusions: The use of electrodes with small gel area affects BIA measurement in the supine position, especially when PhA is used as an indicator of the nutritional status. Therefore, it is essential to specify the type of electrodes and carry out comparative tests before changing consumables for body composition assessment, to ensure BIA measurement reliability in clinical and research settings.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-11-01
2023-07-29T13:23:45Z
2023-07-29T13:23:45Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.008
Clinical Nutrition, v. 41, n. 11, p. 2455-2463, 2022.
1532-1983
0261-5614
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/247713
10.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.008
2-s2.0-85139318030
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.008
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/247713
identifier_str_mv Clinical Nutrition, v. 41, n. 11, p. 2455-2463, 2022.
1532-1983
0261-5614
10.1016/j.clnu.2022.09.008
2-s2.0-85139318030
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Clinical Nutrition
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 2455-2463
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799965446146883584