Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 17;18:238. doi: 10.1186/s12882-017-0639-x

Table 3.

Group-wise dry weight reduction

p-value+
CONV UTR UCR CONV vs UTR CONV vs UCR UTR vs UCR Overall
N participants with dry weight reduction 12 17 14
Initial Dry Weight [kg] 75.6 ± 26.2 67.6 ± 11.9 66.9 ± 16.6 0.44
Ideal Dry Weight [kg]
 (=Normohydration Weight - 7% ECV)
70.3 ± 25.6 63.2 ± 11.2 62.9 ± 16.0 0.49
 Diff. from Initial Dry Weight [kg] −5.3 ± 1.8 −4.3 ± 1.8 −4.0 ± 2.0 0.27
  [% Body Weight] −7.4 ± 2.2 −6.4 ± 2.3 −5.7 ± 2.7 0.22
Dry Weight Reached [kg] 72.6 ± 25.3 64.1 ± 10.7 65.4 ± 16.6 0.42
 Diff. from Initial Dry Weight [kg] −3.0 ± 1.9 −3.5 ± 2.8 −1.5 ± 1.9 0.30 0.15 0.010 0.036
  [% Body Weight] −3.9 ± 2.1 −5.0 ± 3.4 −2.0 ± 2.7 0.31 0.06 0.013 0.022
Ideal Dry Weight Missed by … [kg] 2.3 ± 1.8 0.8 ± 2.1 2.5 ± 1.8 0.06 0.87 0.031 0.044
  [% Body Weight] 3.5 ± 2.7 1.4 ± 3.2 3.7 ± 2.4 0.06

CONV conventional hemodialysis, UTR ultrafiltration and temperature regulation, UCR ultrafiltration and dialysate conductivity regulation, N number, ECV extracellular volume, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, BCM body composition monitor

PP analysis. + P-values between groups determined by two-tailed t-test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Overall p-values determined by analysis of variance and analysis of covariance (for comparison of repeated measures). In one patient from the UTR group only absolute fluid overload values could be measured; relative fluid overload values could not be calculated by the BCM device due to technical issues, resulting in deviation of the FO value from ECV