Education Use Only
For educational use only — Not for clinical decision-making without independent verification
Medical Associates  ·  Department of Nephrology ← Maintenance Hemodialysis module  ·  urinenephrology.org
Clinical Mastery Series  ·  Maintenance Hemodialysis

Estimating dry weight: assessment, tools, probing

What dry weight means, why the examination is not enough, what bioimpedance, lung ultrasound, and blood-volume monitoring add, and how to probe
Andrew Bland, MD, FACP, FAAP UICOMP · UDPA · Butler COM Reviewed September 2026 16 min read

Bottom line

Part of the Maintenance Hemodialysis mastery module. EDW = estimated dry weight; IDWG = interdialytic weight gain; RKF = residual kidney function; IDH = intradialytic hypotension.

  • Dry weight is a clinical construct, not a measurement: the lowest tolerated post-dialysis weight reached by gradual change, with minimal signs or symptoms of hypovolemia or hypervolemia 1. Crackles and edema detect lung congestion poorly (κ 0.00–0.16 against ultrasound B-lines) 2.
  • A structured clinical protocol is enough for most patients. In BISTRO (RCT, 439 incident patients), adding bioimpedance to a standardized fluid-assessment protocol did not slow loss of residual function, and the protocol alone preserved it well 3. Facilities with a written schedule for reassessing dry weight had lower all-cause mortality in DOPPS (HR 0.78) 4.
  • Tools find congestion; none has improved hard outcomes. Lung ultrasound relieved congestion (78% vs 56%) without improving death or cardiovascular events (HR 0.88, 0.63–1.24) 5. Across 10 trials reporting mortality, tool-guided target weight did not reduce it (RR 0.92) 6. Routine blood-volume monitoring in CLIMB was associated with higher mortality (8.7% vs 3.3%) 7.
  • Probing works, slowly. DRIP took 1 kg off over 8 weeks and lowered interdialytic ambulatory systolic pressure by 6.6 mmHg, at the cost of more cramps and hypotension 8. The popular “0.2–0.3 kg per session” pace does not come from DRIP.
  • Residual kidney function changes the math. Reporting urine output at year 1 was associated with lower mortality (HR 0.70) 9, and dialysis hypotension contributed to early loss of residual GFR 10.
  • Chronic fluid overload is associated with death at every blood pressure 11, and a very low IDWG is also a warning sign 12. All of this is observational; no trial has shown that lowering measured overload reduces mortality.

1. What “dry weight” means

“Dry weight,” “estimated dry weight,” and “target weight” are used interchangeably at the chair. They are not the same thing.

  • Dry weight is a physiologic idea: the post-dialysis weight at which extracellular volume is normal. Agarwal and Weir’s working definition is the one worth teaching—the lowest tolerated post-dialysis weight achieved via gradual change, at which there are minimal signs or symptoms of hypovolemia or hypervolemia 1.
  • Target weight is the number programmed today. KDIGO’s 2020 Controversies Conference draws the distinction explicitly: target weight can vary from treatment to treatment, and during acute illness it may be appropriate to leave a patient slightly above estimated dry weight, while weighing the long-term cost of chronic overload 13.

Notice what the definition contains. “Lowest tolerated” means you find it by approaching it. “Gradual” means you cannot find it in one session. “Minimal signs or symptoms” means the endpoint is clinical. No single test gives the answer.

Clinical Pearl — the lag phenomenon

Blood pressure falls weeks after extracellular volume is normalized, not at the next treatment. Charra and the Tassin group described a lag of several weeks between normalization of time-averaged extracellular volume and the fall in blood pressure 14. Judge a new target weight by home or ambulatory blood pressure over weeks, never by the next session’s pre-dialysis reading.

2. Clinical assessment

Why the physical examination is not enough

The traditional examination—lung crackles, peripheral edema, jugular venous distension—performs poorly in dialysis patients. In the LUST sub-study (79 patients, 1,106 paired lung ultrasound and auscultation studies), crackles explained 12% and edema 4% of the variance in ultrasound B-lines; κ ranged from 0.00 to 0.16, and auscultation discriminated moderate congestion with an AUC of 0.65 2. KDIGO 2020 acknowledges that blood pressure, jugular venous distension, and edema may not correlate with volume status, and still recommends the examination, paired with a review of longitudinal weights, blood pressures, and symptoms, at least monthly 13. The examination is insufficient alone; what makes clinical assessment work is structure, repetition, and trend.

Orthostatic blood pressure

At the facility level, DOPPS phase 4 (10,250 patients, 273 facilities) found that routine orthostatic blood pressure measurement to assess dry weight was associated with lower all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.86) and fewer cardiovascular events (HR 0.85) 4. At the patient level, a post-dialysis orthostatic drop did not track bioimpedance-measured extracellular volume in 57 hypertensive patients 15. An orthostatic drop after dialysis is a safety finding (fall risk, intravascular depletion at that moment) more than a dry-weight finding: a reason to look harder, not proof that the target is too low.

What a structured assessment should contain

No trial defines “the” dry-weight checklist. Each component below is anchored to what trials and guidelines actually measured or recommended.

DomainWhat to captureWhy it earns a place
Weight trendPost-dialysis weight versus target over 2–4 weeks; how often the patient finished more than 1 kg above targetFinishing more than 1 kg above target in 30% or more of treatments raised 30-day ED visits and hospitalizations 16; more than 2 kg above or below target in 30% or more of treatments was associated with higher mortality (HR 1.28 and 1.22) 17
Interdialytic weight gainAbsolute kg and percentage of post-dialysis weightRelative IDWG of 4% or more raised fluid-overload hospitalization; 5.7% or more was associated with mortality (HR 1.23) 18. Low IDWG is also a warning, perhaps reflecting protein-energy wasting 12
Flesh-weight changeRecent admission, poor intake, new supplements, amputationTarget weight must move with flesh weight 19
CongestionDyspnea, orthopnea, edema, crackles, JVDRecommended at least monthly despite poor accuracy 2,13
DepletionCramps, dizziness, need for saline, early terminationThe endpoints DRIP used to declare a patient at dry weight 8
Intradialytic BP patternNadir systolic pressure; share of sessions with nadir below 90 mmHgNadir-based IDH carries the mortality signal 20
Out-of-unit BPHome blood-pressure log if availableDry-weight effects show up in interdialytic ambulatory BP 8
Recovery time“How long does it take you to recover?”Recovery longer than 12 hours (vs 2–6) was associated with mortality (HR 1.47); greater intradialytic weight loss predicted longer recovery 21
Residual urine outputDaily urine volume and any changePreserved urine output at year 1 was associated with lower mortality (HR 0.70) 9

Two facility-level findings make the case for a written protocol. In DOPPS, a protocol specifying how often dry weight is reassessed was associated with lower all-cause (HR 0.78, 99% CI 0.64–0.94) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.72) 4. In BISTRO, a standardized clinical fluid-assessment proforma, applied monthly for 3 months and then every 3 months, produced far slower loss of residual function than the investigators expected 3,22. The UK guideline recommends clinical assessment of fluid status monthly for most patients, a formal assessment at least quarterly in stable patients, and a multidisciplinary approach using plain terms such as “target weight” and “fluid gain”; its rationale notes that “dry weight” can imply the goal is to remove as much fluid as possible 19.

3. Residual kidney function

Residual kidney function is the best argument for not chasing dry weight too hard.

  • In CHOICE (734 incident patients, observational), reporting urine output at year 1 was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR 0.70, 0.52–0.93), lower inflammatory markers, and 12,000 U/week less erythropoietin 9.
  • In NECOSAD (522 incident patients), dialysis hypotension contributed to the decline in residual GFR during the first 3 months of hemodialysis 10.
  • KDIGO 2020 states the trade-off: a target weight too low risks hypotension and faster loss of residual function; too high produces hypervolemia 13.
  • The CANUSA reanalysis, a peritoneal dialysis cohort, found a 12% lower risk of death for each 5 L/week/1.73 m² increment in GFR (approximately 0.5 mL/min) and a 36% lower risk for each 250-mL increment in urine volume; once urine volume entered the model, the GFR association disappeared 23.
A commonly misquoted number

The CANUSA finding is often repeated as “12% lower mortality per 1 mL/min of residual GFR.” The reported unit is 5 L/week/1.73 m², approximately 0.5 mL/min; the population was on peritoneal dialysis, not hemodialysis; and urine volume, not GFR, carried the independent signal 23.

Practical consequence. A patient who still makes 500 mL or more of urine a day is a different volume problem. The UK guideline audits residual function as a residual urea clearance above 2 mL/min or urine above 500 mL/day 19, and BISTRO enrolled patients above that urine threshold 3. For these patients, every hypotensive episode is a potential loss of residual function, and a diuretic that increases urine output lowers the ultrafiltration requirement directly 13.

4. Adjunct tools for dry-weight assessment

Every tool below answers the same question—is this patient carrying extra extracellular fluid?—and each shares one trial-level problem: finding congestion has not translated into fewer deaths.

Bioimpedance spectroscopy

Bioimpedance estimates extracellular water and a “normally hydrated weight.”

StudyDesignResult
Onofriescu 2014 24Single-center RCT, 131 patients, 2.5 yearsMortality HR 0.100 (0.013–0.805); lower pulse-wave velocity and fluid overload
Beaubien-Souligny 2019 6Meta-analysis, 12 RCTs, 2,406 patients (mostly bioimpedance)Mortality RR 0.92 (0.57–1.51) in the 10 trials reporting it; systolic BP −3.14 mmHg; hospitalization RR 0.68 (0.46–0.99) in the bioimpedance subgroup; low-quality evidence
BISTRO 2023 3RCT, 34 UK centers, 439 incident patients with urine above 500 mL/day or GFR above 3Time to anuria: HR 0.751 (0.459–1.229), no benefit. BP and patient-reported outcomes unchanged. The standardized clinical protocol alone preserved residual function well

Appraisal. A 90% mortality reduction from a fluid-management tool in 131 patients 24 is implausibly large; a confidence interval from 0.013 to 0.805 is the signature of few events, and the pooled mortality estimate is null 6. BISTRO is the best-designed trial: multicenter, clinicians blinded to bioimpedance in controls, and a patient-important endpoint. Its message is that a disciplined clinical protocol gets you most of the way 3. Bioimpedance still earns a role as a tiebreaker: chronically overloaded patients by bioimpedance die more (section 6) 11,25, and the UK guideline suggests adding a validated objective measure such as bioimpedance when clinical assessment is unclear and after intercurrent illness 19.

Lung ultrasound

B-lines quantify extravascular lung water, the compartment that kills.

  • LUST (RCT, 2021): 367 high-cardiovascular-risk patients. Ultrasound-guided ultrafiltration and drug therapy relieved lung congestion more often (78% vs 56%), was safe, and did not change the primary composite of death, nonfatal MI, or decompensated heart failure (HR 0.88, 0.63–1.24). LV mass, hospitalization, and patient-reported outcomes did not differ. Post hoc, recurrent decompensated heart failure (HR 0.37) and cardiovascular events (HR 0.63) favored the active arm 5.
  • Loutradis 2019 (RCT): 71 clinically euvolemic hypertensive patients. Ultrasound-guided dry-weight reduction was achieved in 54.3% versus 13.9% of controls and lowered 48-hour ambulatory systolic pressure by 6.61 versus 0.67 mmHg; patients with at least one IDH episode were 34.3% versus 55.6% 26.

Appraisal (LUST). Relieving congestion is a surrogate. The trial was open-label, and the 22-point congestion difference (approximately 5 patients scanned and treated per additional patient decongested) did not carry through to the primary endpoint; post hoc recurrent-event analyses are hypothesis-generating only 5. Lung ultrasound is a good way to find congestion the stethoscope misses 2; it is not yet an outcome-improving protocol.

Relative blood volume monitoring

Optical hematocrit monitors track the fall in relative blood volume during ultrafiltration. A flat slope means plasma refill is keeping up, often because there is interstitial fluid to refill from. In DRIP, flat relative plasma volume slopes identified volume-expanded patients, who lost the most weight and had the largest fall in ambulatory blood pressure when probed 27. In 308 prevalent patients, flatter slopes predicted mortality (HR 1.72) independent of ultrafiltration volume and rate 28. Then the randomized evidence:

  • CLIMB (RCT, 2005): 443 patients, 6 centers, 6 months. The monitored group had more non-access hospitalizations (adjusted RR 1.61, 1.15–2.25) and higher mortality (8.7% vs 3.3%, P = 0.021), with no differences in weight, blood pressure, or dialysis complications 7. The control arm’s event rates were atypically low, but a 5.4-point absolute mortality excess (number needed to harm approximately 19 over 6 months) is a signal no one should ignore.
  • Leung 2017 (randomized crossover): blood-volume-guided ultrafiltration biofeedback in 32 IDH-prone patients did not reduce symptomatic IDH 29.
  • DOPPS: routine use of an online volume indicator to assess dry weight was associated with higher all-cause hospitalization (HR 1.19) 4.
Blood-volume monitoring is a teaching and diagnostic tool, not an outcome tool

Use relative blood volume curves to understand an individual patient’s refill physiology—a flat curve in a hypertensive patient argues for probing 27—not as an automated ultrafiltration controller 7.

Natriuretic peptides

BNP and NT-proBNP predict death in dialysis patients; they do not measure volume. Among 150 hypertensive patients in DRIP, BNP fell whether or not dry weight was probed, and baseline BNP did not predict weight loss or blood-pressure response to probing 30. Use them for prognosis and cardiac phenotyping, not for setting target weight.

What each tool actually does

ToolDetects excess fluid?Changes a hard outcome in RCTs?Best use
Structured clinical protocolModerately, by trendPreserved residual function as well as bioimpedance-added care 3Default for everyone
BioimpedanceYesNo (pooled RR 0.92) 6; no residual-function benefit 3Tiebreaker when examination and trend disagree
Lung ultrasoundYes (lung water)No (HR 0.88) 5; lowers ambulatory BP 26High-cardiovascular-risk or dyspneic patient
Relative blood volumeIndirectly (refill)Possible harm in CLIMB 7; no IDH benefit 29Diagnostic, not routine control
BNP / NT-proBNPNo 30—Prognosis

5. Dry-weight probing

DRIP: the only randomized trial of probing

DRIP randomized 150 long-term hypertensive hemodialysis patients 2:1 to additional ultrafiltration (dry-weight probing, without lengthening or adding sessions) or physician visits alone 8.

Endpoint4 weeks8 weeks
Post-dialysis weight change−0.9 kg−1.0 kg
Interdialytic ambulatory systolic BP−6.9 mmHg (−12.4 to −1.3)−6.6 mmHg (−12.2 to −1.0)
Interdialytic ambulatory diastolic BP−3.1 mmHg (−6.2 to −0.02)−3.3 mmHg (−6.4 to −0.2)
Systolic fall of 10 mmHg or more—OR 2.24 (1.32–3.81)

No quality-of-life domain deteriorated, but intradialytic signs and symptoms of hypotension increased, and the full text reports at least three serious adverse events judged likely related to probing: hypotension with seizures, dizziness requiring post-dialysis saline, and chest pain followed by hypotension 8.

Appraisal. DRIP’s primary endpoint, interdialytic ambulatory blood pressure, is linked to outcomes only indirectly. The trial ran 8 weeks in four Indianapolis units with a predominantly Black population, and antihypertensive drugs were frozen 8,27. It proves that probing lowers real blood pressure. It does not prove that probing saves lives, and an ARR or NNT cannot be derived from the published abstract.

How DRIP actually probed

  1. Prescribe an additional 0.1 kg per 10 kg of body weight per dialysis (0.7 kg per session for a 70-kg patient), on top of the interdialytic weight gain, without increasing time or frequency.
  2. If not tolerated—cramps, need for excessive saline, symptomatic hypotension—halve the additional weight loss.
  3. Keep halving until even 0.2 kg of incremental loss per dialysis is not tolerated. At that point the patient is declared at dry weight.
  4. By design, every patient had to experience symptoms of volume depletion to be called “at dry weight” 8.
Where “0.2–0.3 kg per session” did not come from

The advice to probe 0.2–0.3 kg per session and hold each new target for 4–8 weeks is often attributed to DRIP. DRIP started far more aggressively (about 1% of body weight per session) and used 0.2 kg as its floor, not its pace, and no hold interval was protocolized 8. No primary source for 0.2–0.3 kg per session has been identified; KDIGO 2020 says only “gently probing” 13. The pace in any unit protocol is expert judgment.

Pace and stop rules for real practice

  • Go slowly and give it weeks. Blood pressure responds over weeks, not sessions 8,14; DRIP’s effect was present at 4 weeks and stable at 8 8.
  • Keep the ultrafiltration rate inside the ceiling while probing. Probing by raising the rate within the same session time stacks two risks; KDIGO lists lengthening or adding treatments as the ways to achieve more removal 13 (see Ultrafiltration rate and treatment time).
  • Pick the right patient. Flat blood-volume slopes 27, hypertension on home or ambulatory readings, and congestion on ultrasound 26 identify likely responders. Pedal edema did not predict who responded in DRIP 8.
  • Stop rules. Stop or back off on cramps, need for saline, symptomatic hypotension, or a nadir systolic pressure below 90 mmHg 8,20; recurrent nadir-based IDH is itself a mortality marker 20.
  • Protect residual function. The UK guideline notes that probing to symptoms may reduce adherence and that under-estimating target weight accelerates loss of residual function 19. Frequent nocturnal hemodialysis, the most intense volume removal studied, accelerated it: urine output reached zero in 52% versus 18% at 4 months 31.
Clinical Pearl

Probe the patient whose home blood pressure is high, whose blood-volume curve is flat, and whose lungs are wet. Leave alone the patient who cramps every session, has a nadir under 90, and still makes a liter of urine; that patient needs time, not a lower number.

6. Chronic fluid overload and outcomes

The case for doing any of this rests on cohort data showing that chronic extracellular excess is associated with death. All studies below are observational.

StudyPopulationExposureFinding
Wizemann 2009 25269 prevalent patientsPre-dialysis overhydration above 15% of extracellular water (about 2.5 L) by bioimpedanceIndependent predictor of death (HR 2.10), second only to diabetes
Zoccali 2017 1139,566 incident patients, 26 countriesBaseline and cumulative 1-year fluid overloadCumulative overload: HR 1.94 (systolic below 130), 1.51 (130–160), 1.62 (above 160)
Dekker 2018 (MONDO) 328,883 patientsPre-dialysis fluid status × pre-dialysis systolic BPOverload with systolic below 110: HR 1.52; in normovolemic patients, systolic below 110 associated with better survival (HR 0.46)
Hecking 2018 1238,614 incident patientsPre- and post-dialysis fluid overload, IDWGOverload before and after both harmful; worst was high pre-dialysis overload with the lowest IDWG (HR 2.66)
Kalantar-Zadeh 2009 3334,107 US patientsIDWG in 0.5-kg bandsIDWG of 4.0 kg or more: cardiovascular death HR 1.25 versus 1.5–2.0 kg
Wong 2017 (DOPPS) 1821,919 patientsRelative IDWG5.7% of body weight or more: mortality HR 1.23

Three lessons for the chair:

  1. Overload is dangerous at every blood pressure. Cumulative overload predicted death with systolic pressure under 130 as well as over 160 11. A normal pre-dialysis blood pressure does not clear a patient of volume excess.
  2. Low blood pressure means something different in a wet patient. Low pre-dialysis systolic pressure was harmful only when the patient was overloaded or depleted, not when normovolemic 32.
  3. Small IDWG is not automatically good. The lowest IDWG quartile carried excess short-term mortality, which may reflect protein-energy wasting; the volume left behind after dialysis is the most intuitive guide 12.

Evidence gaps

  • No trial has shown that lowering measured fluid overload reduces death. Bioimpedance, lung ultrasound, and blood-volume monitoring find congestion but did not improve hard outcomes 3,5,6,7.
  • Probing pace is unstudied. DRIP is the only probing RCT, and its protocol was symptom-driven 8.
  • Residual function as a primary target of volume management is supported by BISTRO’s protocol arm, but no trial has compared target-weight strategies 3.
  • No validated dry-weight checklist exists; the components in section 2 are assembled from what individual studies measured.

At the chair

For dialysis nurses and technicians

Weigh the trend, not the day: how often the patient leaves above target, the weight gain between sessions, and any change in flesh weight after an admission or a poor-appetite month. Record the nadir blood pressure, cramps, saline use, recovery time, and urine output, because these are the signals the evidence uses. A new target weight is judged over weeks. Report a patient who repeatedly finishes above target, or who cramps and drops below 90 systolic on the way to it.

Nursing card N3: Dry weight assessment checklist — do this, call when, don’t, and why

The physician’s written order and the unit protocol always govern.

Also in this module

References

References are carried from a reference-checked evidence review (September 2026) and renumbered for this page. Each was checked against its PubMed record, full text, or the issuing agency’s document.

  1. Agarwal R, Weir MR. Dry-weight: a concept revisited in an effort to avoid medication-directed approaches for blood pressure control in hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(7):1255-60. PMID: 20507951
  2. Torino C, Gargani L, Sicari R, et al. The agreement between auscultation and lung ultrasound in hemodialysis patients: the LUST study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(11):2005-2011. PMID: 27660305
  3. Davies SJ, Coyle D, Lindley EJ, et al. Bio-impedance spectroscopy added to a fluid management protocol does not improve preservation of residual kidney function in incident hemodialysis patients in a randomized controlled trial. Kidney Int. 2023;104(3):587-598. PMID: 37263353
  4. Dasgupta I, Thomas GN, Clarke J, et al. Associations between hemodialysis facility practices to manage fluid volume and intradialytic hypotension and patient outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14(3):385-393. PMID: 30723164
  5. Zoccali C, Torino C, Mallamaci F, et al. A randomized multicenter trial on a lung ultrasound-guided treatment strategy in patients on chronic hemodialysis with high cardiovascular risk. Kidney Int. 2021;100(6):1325-1333. PMID: 34418415
  6. Beaubien-Souligny W, Kontar L, Blum D, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using tool-assisted target weight adjustments in chronic dialysis patients. Kidney Int Rep. 2019;4(10):1426-1434. PMID: 31701052
  7. Reddan DN, Szczech LA, Hasselblad V, et al. Intradialytic blood volume monitoring in ambulatory hemodialysis patients: a randomized trial. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16(7):2162-9. PMID: 15930095
  8. Agarwal R, Alborzi P, Satyan S, Light RP. Dry-weight reduction in hypertensive hemodialysis patients (DRIP): a randomized, controlled trial. Hypertension. 2009;53(3):500-7. PMID: 19153263
  9. Shafi T, Jaar BG, Plantinga LC, et al. Association of residual urine output with mortality, quality of life, and inflammation in incident hemodialysis patients: the CHOICE Study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2010;56(2):348-58. PMID: 20605303
  10. Jansen MA, Hart AA, Korevaar JC, et al. Predictors of the rate of decline of residual renal function in incident dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2002;62(3):1046-53. PMID: 12164889
  11. Zoccali C, Moissl U, Chazot C, et al. Chronic fluid overload and mortality in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28(8):2491-2497. PMID: 28473637
  12. Hecking M, Moissl U, Genser B, et al. Greater fluid overload and lower interdialytic weight gain are independently associated with mortality in a large international hemodialysis population. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(10):1832-1842. PMID: 29688512
  13. Flythe JE, Chang TI, Gallagher MP, et al. Blood pressure and volume management in dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2020;97(5):861-876. PMID: 32278617
  14. Charra B, Bergström J, Scribner BH. Blood pressure control in dialysis patients: importance of the lag phenomenon. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32(5):720-4. PMID: 9820439
  15. Jeon-Slaughter H, Gregg LP, Concepcion M, et al. The associations between orthostatic blood pressure changes and extracellular volume in hemodialysis patients. Hemodial Int. 2022;26(1):124-133. PMID: 34396668
  16. Assimon MM, Wang L, Flythe JE. Failed target weight achievement associates with short-term hospital encounters among individuals receiving maintenance hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;29(8):2178-2188. PMID: 29793962
  17. Flythe JE, Kshirsagar AV, Falk RJ, Brunelli SM. Associations of posthemodialysis weights above and below target weight with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10(5):808-16. PMID: 25862779
  18. Wong MM, McCullough KP, Bieber BA, et al. Interdialytic weight gain: trends, predictors, and associated outcomes in the international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(3):367-379. PMID: 27866963
  19. Ashby D, Borman N, Burton J, et al. Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Haemodialysis. BMC Nephrol. 2019;20(1):379. PMID: 31623578
  20. Flythe JE, Xue H, Lynch KE, Curhan GC, Brunelli SM. Association of mortality risk with various definitions of intradialytic hypotension. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(3):724-34. PMID: 25270068
  21. Rayner HC, Zepel L, Fuller DS, et al. Recovery time, quality of life, and mortality in hemodialysis patients: the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64(1):86-94. PMID: 24529994
  22. Davies SJ, Coyle D, Lindley E, et al. BioImpedance Spectroscopy to maintain Renal Output: the BISTRO randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2025;29(32):1-23. PMID: 40757698
  23. Bargman JM, Thorpe KE, Churchill DN. Relative contribution of residual renal function and peritoneal clearance to adequacy of dialysis: a reanalysis of the CANUSA study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12(10):2158-2162. PMID: 11562415
  24. Onofriescu M, Hogas S, Voroneanu L, et al. Bioimpedance-guided fluid management in maintenance hemodialysis: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64(1):111-8. PMID: 24583055
  25. Wizemann V, Wabel P, Chamney P, et al. The mortality risk of overhydration in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24(5):1574-9. PMID: 19131355
  26. Loutradis C, Sarafidis PA, Ekart R, et al. The effect of dry-weight reduction guided by lung ultrasound on ambulatory blood pressure in hemodialysis patients: a randomized controlled trial. Kidney Int. 2019;95(6):1505-1513. PMID: 31027889
  27. Sinha AD, Light RP, Agarwal R. Relative plasma volume monitoring during hemodialysis aids the assessment of dry weight. Hypertension. 2010;55(2):305-11. PMID: 20038754
  28. Agarwal R. Hypervolemia is associated with increased mortality among hemodialysis patients. Hypertension. 2010;56(3):512-7. PMID: 20625076
  29. Leung KCW, Quinn RR, Ravani P, et al. Randomized crossover trial of blood volume monitoring-guided ultrafiltration biofeedback to reduce intradialytic hypotensive episodes with hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;12(11):1831-1840. PMID: 29018100
  30. Agarwal R. B-type natriuretic peptide is not a volume marker among patients on hemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(12):3082-9. PMID: 23525529
  31. Daugirdas JT, Greene T, Rocco MV, et al. Effect of frequent hemodialysis on residual kidney function. Kidney Int. 2013;83(5):949-58. PMID: 23344474
  32. Dekker M, Konings C, Canaud B, et al. Pre-dialysis fluid status, pre-dialysis systolic blood pressure and outcome in prevalent haemodialysis patients: results of an international cohort study on behalf of the MONDO initiative. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33(11):2027-2034. PMID: 29718469
  33. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Regidor DL, Kovesdy CP, et al. Fluid retention is associated with cardiovascular mortality in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis. Circulation. 2009;119(5):671-9. PMID: 19171851