Patel R V, Matthie J R, Withers P O, Peterson E L, Zarowitz B J
Department of Pharmacy Services, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI 48202.
Ann Pharmacother. 1994 May;28(5):565-9. doi: 10.1177/106002809402800501.
To determine the precision and bias of single- and multiple-frequency bioimpedance estimates of total body water (TBW) and extracellular water (ECW) volumes in comparison with the true values for these volumes established by gold standard dilution techniques.
Controlled, prospective, open-label investigation.
Private, not-for-profit university-affiliated, acute care hospital.
Normal, healthy men (n = 8) and women (n = 6) volunteers, 25-46 years of age.
A single oral dose of a mixture of deuterium oxide 10 g and bromine 30 mmol; bioimpedance analysis pre- and three hours postmixture administration.
TBW and ECW volumes established by deuterium oxide and bromine dilutional spaces (gold standards), respectively, and single- and multiple-frequency bioimpedance estimates of those same volumes.
The mean multiple-frequency bioimpedance (MFB) and single frequency bioimpedance (SFB) estimates of TBW, 41.2 and 42.1 L, respectively, were not statistically different (NS) from the 41.2 L deuterium oxide value. Although the two methods had similar precision (NS), MFB was less biased. For ECW, the mean MFB and SFB values of 19.5 and 24.8 L, respectively, were significantly different from the bromine value of 18.8 L (p = 0.013 and p = 0.001, respectively). MFB was the more precise and less biased predictor of ECW.
Compared with SFB, the MFB approach is a more precise and less biased predictor of TBW and ECW volumes in young, healthy adults, and may offer more accurate assessment in subjects with aberrant physiology.
与通过金标准稀释技术确定的总体水（TBW）和细胞外水（ECW）体积的真实值相比，确定单频和多频生物电阻抗估计这些体积的精密度和偏差。
对照、前瞻性、开放标签研究。
私立、非营利性大学附属医院。
25至46岁的正常、健康男性志愿者8名和女性志愿者6名。
口服一剂含10克氧化氘和30毫摩尔溴的混合物；在混合物给药前及给药后3小时进行生物电阻抗分析。
分别通过氧化氘和溴稀释空间（金标准）确定的TBW和ECW体积，以及对相同体积的单频和多频生物电阻抗估计值。
TBW的平均多频生物电阻抗（MFB）和单频生物电阻抗（SFB）估计值分别为41.2升和42.1升，与41.2升的氧化氘值无统计学差异（NS）。虽然两种方法具有相似的精密度（NS），但MFB的偏差较小。对于ECW，平均MFB和SFB值分别为19.5升和24.8升，与18.8升的溴值有显著差异（分别为p = 0.013和p = 0.001）。MFB是ECW更精确且偏差更小的预测指标。
与SFB相比，MFB方法在年轻、健康成年人中是TBW和ECW体积更精确且偏差更小的预测指标，并且可能为生理异常的受试者提供更准确的评估。
