Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 20, 2025
Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
Prognostic value of phase angle and bioelectrical impedance vector in critically ill patients: A systematic review
Júlia Lima1, Igor Eckert2, Maria Cristina Gonzalez3
1Master Student at Nutrition Science Graduate Program Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Background And Aims:
Assessment of the raw parameters derived from bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has gained emphasis in critically ill patients. The phase angle (PhA) reflects the integrity of the cell membrane, and bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) is indicative of patients' hydration status. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these parameters are associated with clinical outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science for all published observational studies without language restrictions up to April 2022. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. We judged the risk of bias by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach. Mortality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, nutritional risk, and malnutrition. A meta-analysis with a random-effect model was performed to combine data on R version 3.6.2.
Results:
Twenty-seven studies were included in the systematic review (4872 participants). Pooled analysis revealed that patients with low PhA had a higher risk of death (14 studies; RR = 1.82, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.26; I2 = 42%) and spent more days in ICU (6 studies; MD = 1.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.24, I2 = 69%) in comparison to patients with normal PhA. The pooled analysis also showed higher PhA values in survivors compared to non-survivor patients (12 studies; MD = 0.75°, 95% CI 0.60° to 0.91°, I2 = 31%). Overhydration defined by BIVA was not a predictor of mortality (4 studies; RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.46; I2 = 0%). More than 40% of primary studies were classified with a high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence ranged from low to very low.
Conclusions:
This meta-analysis revealed, with limited evidence, that low PhA was associated with higher mortality and ICU length of stay, while overhydration identified by BIVA was not a predictor of death in critically ill patients.
