Table 2 Summary of cohorts reporting multivariate analyses with a stated hazard ratio, (HR) risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals, (CI) lower limit (LL) and upper limit (UL).

From: Bioimpedance-defined overhydration predicts survival in end stage kidney failure (ESKF): systematic review and subgroup meta-analysis

Author(s)

Year

MVA Type

Mortality

Censored

BIA Marker

BIA Marker MVA

HR/OR for BIA

95% CI LL

95% CI UL

Reason for exclusion from MA

End-stage Kidney Failure Cohorts

Demirci

2016

Cox analysis

93

Y1,2,3

BIVA

Impedance ratio

HR = 1.13

1.04

1.23

Only study using impedance ratio for BIVA analysis.

Pillon/Chertow

2004

Unclear MVA

361

Y2,3,4,5

BIVA

MVA using vector length (per 100ohm/m change)

RR = 0.75

0.57

0.88

Only 1 study using this BIA method

Chen

2007

Cox analysis

58

Y1,2,3

ECW Ratio

ECW/ICW - for every increase by 0.1 (time dependent)

RR = 1.37

1.1

1.7

Only study expressing continuous ECW/ICW variable in 0.1 increments.

Fan

2015

Cox analysis

37

N

ECW Ratio

ECW as an absolute value (in litres)

HR = 2.98

1.4

7.3

Only study expressing ECW as absolute volume.

Kim

2017

Cox analysis

24

Y2

ECW Ratio

ECW/ICW - for every increase by 0.01

HR = 1.12

1.01

1.25

Only study expressing continuous ECW/ICW variable in 0.01 increments.

Paniagua

2010

Cox analysis

182

N

ECW Ratio

ECW/TBW as continuous variable in CV mortality

OR = 1171.33

3.35

409899.37

Only study expressing ECW/TBW as continuous variable (expressed per unit ratio)

Rhee

2015

Cox analysis

15

N

ECW Ratio

ECW/TBW > Median

HR = 1.001

1.001

1.086

Only study expressing ECW/TBW > median

Guo/Guo

2015

Cox analysis

52

Y1,2,3,4

ECW Ratio

ECW/TBW > 0.4

HR = 13.12

1.35

128

Only study expressing ECW/TBW > 0.4 as cut off

Tian

2016

Cox analysis

44

N

ECW Ratio

ECW Ratio > 1 standard deviation from expected

HR = 2.20

0.79

6.08

Only study expressing ECW ratio > 1 standard deviation from expected

O’Lone

2014

Cox analysis

95

N

ECW Ratio+OH Index

Two markers: OH/ECW and ECW/TBW (highest 30% each)

HR 2.09 (1.36, 3.20)/HR 2.05 (1.31, 3.22)

  

Only study expressing both indices with 30% highest decile cut off

Caetano*

2016

Cox analysis

66

Y1,2

OH Index

OH/ECW > 15%

HR = 2.22

1.29

3.79

More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%

Chazot*

2012

Cox analysis

Unclear

Y2,4

OH Index

OHI > 15% (dHS/ECW)

HR = 3.41

1.62

7.17

More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%

Dekker*

2017

Cox analysis

Unclear

Y1,2.3,4

OH Index

OHI/ECW > 15% (overhydration 2.5–5L)

HR = 2.62

2.1

3.3

More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%

Hoppe

2015

MLR

Unclear

N

OH Index

Continuous variable

OR = 1.12

0.92

1.37

Only study expressing OHI as continuous variable in MLR

Huan-Sheng

2016

Cox analysis

13

N

OH Index

Absolute OH; BIA-defined protocol linked with episodes of absolute fluid overload to determine management

   

RCT - testing an intervention vs. control, non comparable design.

Jotterand-Drepper*

2016

Cox analysis

19

Y1,2,3

OH Index

OHI/ECW > 15%

HR = 7.82

1.1

29.07

More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%

Kim*

2015

Cox analysis

50

Y2

OH Index

OH/ECW > 15%

HR = 2.58

1.16

5.75

More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%

Mathew

2015

MLR

41

Y2,3

OH Index

Absolute OH > Median (3.1L)

OR = 2.96

1.04

8.46

Only study expressing OHI > median

Onofriescu

2014

Cox analysis

9

Y2,3

OH Index

OH/ECW > 15% used to define BIA-defined overhydration in RCT of BIA-driven vs standard care.

   

RCT - testing an intervention vs. control, non comparable design.

Onofriescu*

2015

Cox analysis

66

Y1,2,3,4

OH Index

RFO (OH/ECW) > 15% and  > 17.4%

15%: HR 1.87

1.12

3.13

More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%

Siriopol/Siriopol

2015

Cox analysis

31

Y1,2,4

OH Index

OH/ECW > 6.68%

HR = 2.93

1.3

6.58

Only study expressing OHI > 6.68%

Siriopol

2017

Cox analysis

89

Y1,2,4

OH Index

OH/ECW > 6.9%

HR = 1.34

0.67

2.68

Only study expressing OHI > 6.9%

Tangvorap-honkchai

2016

Cox analysis

110

N

OH Index

OH as a continuous variable

HR = 1.15

1.03

1.28

Only study expressing OHI as a continuous variable in Cox regression.

Wizemann*

2009

Cox analysis

86

Y2,4

OH Index

OH/ECW > 15%

HR = 2.10

1.39

3.18

More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%

Zoccali*

2017

Cox analysis

5866

N

OH Index

OH/ECW > 15% in males and > 13% in females

HR = 1.26

1.19

1.33

More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%

Bebera-shvili**

2014

Cox analysis

38

N

PA

1 degree increase PA (time varying risk)

HR = 0.61

0.53

0.71

More than 1 study expressing PA as continuous variable

Bebera-shvili**

2014

Cox analysis

64

Y2,3

PA

PA - continuous variable in MVA

HR = 0.72

0.54

0.96

More than 1 study expressing PA as continuous variable

Fiedler

2009

Cox analysis

36

Y2

PA

PA < 4

HR = 2.34

1.O6

5.14

Only study expressing PA < 4

Koh**

2011

Cox analysis

35

N

PA

PA - continuous variable in MVA

HR = 0.39

0.27

0.57

More than 1 study expressing PA as continuous variable

Segall/Segall

2014

Cox analysis

11

N

PA

PA < 5.58

HR = 2.15

1.16

3.99

Only study expressing PA < 5.58

Shin**

2017

Cox analysis

15

N

PA

PA - continuous variable in MVA

HR = 0.56

0.33

0.97

More than 1 study expressing PA as continuous variable

de Araujo

2013

Cox analysis

13

Y1,2,4,6

PA+ECW Ratio

Stratified for diabetic status - PA predictive in nonDM/not predictive in DM

   

Stratified for diabetic status with two separate analyses

Heart Failure Cohorts

Trejo-Velasco

2016

Cox analysis

19

N

BIVA

BIVA Hyperhydration (defined as > 74.3%)

HR = 2.60

1.10

6.40

Only study expressing BIVA

Sakaguchi

2015

Cox analysis

37

N

ECW Ratio

ECW Ratio (measured/predicted)

HR = 1.48

1.20

1.83

Only study expressing ECW ratio (measured/predicted)

Alves

2016

Cox analysis

34

N

PA

PA < 4.8

HR = 2.67

1.21

5.89

Only study expressing PA < 4.8

Colin-Ramirez

2012

Cox analysis

66

N

PA

PA < 4.2

HR = 3.08

1.06

8.99

Only study expressing PA < 4.2

  1. Authors highlighted with * or ** had their studies included within the final subgroup meta-analysis. Censoring, where used within MVSA, are stated, with reasons including: Transfer to another RRT modality (1), transplantation (2), loss to follow up (3), transfer to another dialysis facility (4), withdrawal from RRT (5) or, in the case of one paper death due to non-cardiovascular cause (6).