Takanishi Danny M, Yu Mihae, Lurie Fedor, Biuk-Aghai Elisabeth, Yamauchi Hideko, Ho Hao Chih, Chapital Alyssa D
Department of Surgery, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96813, USA.
Anesth Analg. 2008 Jun;106(6):1808-12. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181731d7c.
Peripheral blood hematocrit (red blood cell volume/total blood volume) is conventionally used to determine the need for blood transfusions. In critically ill surgical patients, this variable may not accurately approximate true red blood cell volume. We compared peripheral blood hematocrit to (1) plasma volume, (2) estimated circulating blood volume, and (3) a normalized hematocrit to clarify their relationships.
Consecutive patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit were evaluated using the BVA-100 Blood Volume Analyzer (Daxor Corporation, New York City, NY). Plasma volume was directly measured by serial tagged albumin concentration. Red blood cell volume was calculated using plasma volume and the peripheral blood hematocrit result. All volumes were presented as percentage deviation from ideal volumes. These ideal volumes were obtained using a patented formula incorporating ideal body weight as determined by Metropolitan Life tables. The peripheral blood hematocrit was compared with a "normalized" hematocrit, defined as the hematocrit value if plasma volume was adjusted to a normal whole blood volume.
Eighty-six data points were recorded for 40 patients with average age 61 +/- 20 yr, APACHE II score 20 +/- 6, and a 13% mortality rate. The primary reasons for admission were severe sepsis/septic shock (n = 11), hemorrhagic shock (n = 7), respiratory failure (n = 20), and cardiac failure (n = 2). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 3.4 +/- 7.8 hematocrit percentage points between normalized and peripheral blood hematocrit methods, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.7-5.1 and limits of agreement of +/-15.2 hematocrit percentage points. Peripheral blood hematocrit was lower than the normalized hematocrit in 48% of measurements, higher in 17%, and equivalent in 35%.
Peripheral blood hematocrit may not accurately estimate red blood cell volume in a cohort of critically ill surgical patients. This remains to be validated in a larger group of patients, comparing these results with the double isotope technique.
外周血细胞比容(红细胞体积/全血体积)传统上用于确定输血需求。在重症外科患者中,这一变量可能无法准确估算真正的红细胞体积。我们比较了外周血细胞比容与(1)血浆容量、(2)估计循环血量以及(3)标准化血细胞比容,以阐明它们之间的关系。
使用BVA - 100血容量分析仪(纽约市达索尔公司)对入住外科重症监护病房的连续患者进行评估。通过连续标记白蛋白浓度直接测量血浆容量。使用血浆容量和外周血细胞比容结果计算红细胞体积。所有容量均以相对于理想容量的百分比偏差表示。这些理想容量是使用包含由大都会人寿表确定的理想体重的专利公式获得的。将外周血细胞比容与“标准化”血细胞比容进行比较,“标准化”血细胞比容定义为如果将血浆容量调整为正常全血容量时的血细胞比容值。
记录了40例患者的86个数据点,患者平均年龄61±20岁,急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE II)评分为20±6,死亡率为13%。入院的主要原因是严重脓毒症/脓毒性休克(n = 11)、失血性休克(n = 7)、呼吸衰竭(n = 20)和心力衰竭(n = 2)。布兰德 - 奥特曼分析显示,标准化血细胞比容方法与外周血细胞比容方法之间的平均差异为3.4±7.8个血细胞比容百分点,95%置信区间为1.7 - 5.1,一致性界限为±15.2个血细胞比容百分点。48%的测量中,外周血细胞比容低于标准化血细胞比容,17%高于标准化血细胞比容,35%两者相当。
在外周血细胞比容可能无法准确估算重症外科患者群体中的红细胞体积。这仍有待在更大规模的患者群体中进行验证,并将这些结果与双同位素技术进行比较。