Keiser Stefanie, Meinild-Lundby Anne-Kristine, Steiner Thomas, Trösch Severin, Rauber Sven, Krafft Alexander, Burkhardt Tilo, Hilty Matthias Peter, Siebenmann Christoph, Wehrlin Jon Peter, Lundby Carsten
a Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology , Institute of Physiology, University of Zurich , Zurich , Switzerland.
b Swiss Federal Institute of Sports , Magglingen , Switzerland.
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2017 May;77(3):164-174. doi: 10.1080/00365513.2016.1271908. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
The main aim of the present study was to quantify the magnitude of differences introduced when estimating a given blood volume compartment (e.g. plasma volume) through the direct determination of another compartment (e.g. red cell volume) by multiplication of venous haematocrit and/or haemoglobin concentration. However, since whole body haematocrit is higher than venous haematocrit such an approach might comprise certain errors. To test this experimentally, four different methods for detecting blood volumes and haemoglobin mass (Hb) were compared, namely the carbon monoxide (CO) re-breathing (for Hb), the indocyanine green (ICG; for plasma volume [PV]) and the sodium fluorescein (SoF; for red blood cell volume [RBCV]) methods. No difference between ICG and CO re-breathing derived PV could be established when a whole body/venous haematocrit correction factor of 0.91 was applied (p = 0.11, r = 0.43, mean difference -340 ± 612 mL). In contrast, when comparing RBCV derived by the CO re-breathing and the SoF method, the SoF method revealed lower RBCV values as compared to the CO re-breathing method (p < 0.05, r = 0.95, mean difference -728 ± 184 mL). However, compared to the ICG and the SoF methods, the typical error (%TE) and hence reliability of the CO re-breathing method was lower for all measured parameters. Therefore, estimating blood volume compartments by the direct assessment of another compartment can be considered a suitable approach. The CO re-breathing method proved accurate in determining the induced phlebotomy and is at the same time judged easier to perform than any of the other methods.
本研究的主要目的是通过静脉血细胞比容和/或血红蛋白浓度相乘,直接测定另一个血容量区室(如红细胞容积)来估算给定血容量区室(如血浆容积)时,量化所引入差异的大小。然而,由于全身血细胞比容高于静脉血细胞比容,这种方法可能存在一定误差。为了通过实验验证这一点,比较了检测血容量和血红蛋白量(Hb)的四种不同方法,即一氧化碳(CO)重呼吸法(用于检测Hb)、吲哚菁绿(ICG;用于检测血浆容积[PV])和荧光素钠(SoF;用于检测红细胞容积[RBCV])法。当应用0.91的全身/静脉血细胞比容校正因子时,ICG法和CO重呼吸法得出的PV之间未发现差异(p = 0.11,r = 0.43,平均差异-340±612 mL)。相反,比较CO重呼吸法和SoF法得出的RBCV时,SoF法得出的RBCV值低于CO重呼吸法(p < 0.05,r = 0.95,平均差异-728±184 mL)。然而,与ICG法和SoF法相比,CO重呼吸法对于所有测量参数的典型误差(%TE)以及可靠性更低。因此,通过直接评估另一个区室来估算血容量区室可被视为一种合适的方法。CO重呼吸法在确定诱导放血方面被证明是准确的,并且同时被认为比其他任何方法都更容易操作。