Normal values for segmental bioimpedance spectroscopy in pediatric patients

Abstract

Introduction: Localized limb edema is a clinically relevant sign in diseases such as post-thrombotic syndrome and lymphedema. Quantitative evaluation of localized edema in children is mainly done by measuring the absolute difference in limb circumference, which includes fat and fat-free mass. Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) provides information on the fluid volume of a body segment. Our objective was to determine normal ranges for segmental (arm and leg) BIS measurements in healthy children. Additionally, we determined the normal ranges for the difference in arm and ankle circumference and explored the influence of handedness and the correlation between techniques. Methods: Healthy children aged 1-18 years were recruited. The ratio of extracellular fluid content between contralateral limbs (estimated as the inter-arm and inter-leg extracellular impedance ratio), and the ratio of extracellular to intracellular fluid content for each limb (estimated as the intracellular to extracellular impedance ratio) were determined with a bioimpedance spectrometer. Arm and ankle circumference was determined with a Gulick II tape. Results: We recruited 223 healthy children (48 infants, 54 preschoolers, 66 school-aged children, and 55 teenagers). Normal values for arm and leg BIS measurements, and for the difference in arm and ankle circumference were estimated for each age category. No influence of handedness was found.We found a statistically significant correlation between extracellular impedance ratio and circumference difference for arms among teenagers. Conclusion: We determined normal BIS ranges for arms and legs and for the difference in circumference between arms and between ankles in children. There was no statistically significant correlation between extracellular impedance ratio and difference in circumference, except in the case of arms in adolescents. This may indicate that limb circumference measures quantities other than fluid, challenging the adequacy of this technique to determine the presence of localized edema in most age groups.