Volume Overload Profiles in Patients With Preserved (HFpEF) and Reduced (HFrEF) Ejection Fraction Chronic Heart Failure. Are There Differences? A Pilot Study

Wayne L. Miller, Brian P. Mullan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to characterize volume profiles and their differences in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ventricular systolic function. Background: The extent and distribution of volume overload and the associated implications for volume management have not been studied in decompensated HFpEF compared with HFrEF. Methods: Total blood volume (TBV) was quantitated using a standardized computer-based radiolabeled albumin dilution technique. Results: Twenty HFpEF and 35 HFrEF patients were evaluated at hospital admission. TBV was expanded by 27 ± 21% (range -5.2% to 77%, p = 0.002) and 37 ± 25% (0% to 107%, p <0.001), respectively, above normal volumes. Red cell mass (RBCM) was expanded in HFrEF (24 ± 31%, p = 0.004) but within normal limits in HFpEF (8 ± 34%, p = 0.660) with, however, large variability in both groups. RBCM excess was more prominent in HFrEF (63% vs. 45%) than the RBCM deficit in HFpEF (35% vs.14%). With diuresis, TBV decreased to 25 ± 20% (p = 0.029) in HFrEF but was not changed in HFpEF (18 ± 20% [p = 0.173]). Body weight declined 6.6 ± 4.4 kg in HFrEF and 10.5 ± 8.3 kg (p = 0.026) in HFpEF. Interstitial fluid losses accounted for 85 ± 13% (HFrEF) and 93 ± 6% (HFpEF) (p = 0.012) of total volume removed. Conclusions: TBV profiles differ between HFpEF and HFrEF patients with DCHF. Quantitated volume analysis revealed both significant RBCM (polycythemia) and plasma volume excess in HFrEF, whereas a higher RBCM deficit (true anemia) was demonstrated in HFpEF. Diuresis produced only a modest reduction in intravascular volumes with persistent hypervolemia in both groups at discharge, but overall more total body fluid was lost in HFpEF. These profile differences have implications for individualizing volume management.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJACC: Heart Failure
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Oct 26 2015

Fingerprint

Blood Volume
Heart Failure
Diuresis
Erythrocyte Volume
Indicator Dilution Techniques
Polycythemia
Ventricular Function
Plasma Volume
Extracellular Fluid
Body Fluids
Anemia
Albumins
Body Weight

Keywords

  • Decompensated chronic heart failure
  • Diuretic therapy
  • HFpEF
  • HFrEF
  • Total blood volume quantitation
  • Volume overload

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{49c35607094d4e91a5d8f41b78a4bf0e,
title = "Volume Overload Profiles in Patients With Preserved (HFpEF) and Reduced (HFrEF) Ejection Fraction Chronic Heart Failure. Are There Differences? A Pilot Study",
abstract = "Objectives: This study aimed to characterize volume profiles and their differences in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ventricular systolic function. Background: The extent and distribution of volume overload and the associated implications for volume management have not been studied in decompensated HFpEF compared with HFrEF. Methods: Total blood volume (TBV) was quantitated using a standardized computer-based radiolabeled albumin dilution technique. Results: Twenty HFpEF and 35 HFrEF patients were evaluated at hospital admission. TBV was expanded by 27 ± 21{\%} (range -5.2{\%} to 77{\%}, p = 0.002) and 37 ± 25{\%} (0{\%} to 107{\%}, p <0.001), respectively, above normal volumes. Red cell mass (RBCM) was expanded in HFrEF (24 ± 31{\%}, p = 0.004) but within normal limits in HFpEF (8 ± 34{\%}, p = 0.660) with, however, large variability in both groups. RBCM excess was more prominent in HFrEF (63{\%} vs. 45{\%}) than the RBCM deficit in HFpEF (35{\%} vs.14{\%}). With diuresis, TBV decreased to 25 ± 20{\%} (p = 0.029) in HFrEF but was not changed in HFpEF (18 ± 20{\%} [p = 0.173]). Body weight declined 6.6 ± 4.4 kg in HFrEF and 10.5 ± 8.3 kg (p = 0.026) in HFpEF. Interstitial fluid losses accounted for 85 ± 13{\%} (HFrEF) and 93 ± 6{\%} (HFpEF) (p = 0.012) of total volume removed. Conclusions: TBV profiles differ between HFpEF and HFrEF patients with DCHF. Quantitated volume analysis revealed both significant RBCM (polycythemia) and plasma volume excess in HFrEF, whereas a higher RBCM deficit (true anemia) was demonstrated in HFpEF. Diuresis produced only a modest reduction in intravascular volumes with persistent hypervolemia in both groups at discharge, but overall more total body fluid was lost in HFpEF. These profile differences have implications for individualizing volume management.",
keywords = "Decompensated chronic heart failure, Diuretic therapy, HFpEF, HFrEF, Total blood volume quantitation, Volume overload",
author = "Miller, {Wayne L.} and Mullan, {Brian P.}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1016/j.jchf.2016.01.005",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "JACC: Heart Failure",
issn = "2213-1779",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Volume Overload Profiles in Patients With Preserved (HFpEF) and Reduced (HFrEF) Ejection Fraction Chronic Heart Failure. Are There Differences? A Pilot Study

AU - Miller, Wayne L.

AU - Mullan, Brian P.

PY - 2015/10/26

Y1 - 2015/10/26

N2 - Objectives: This study aimed to characterize volume profiles and their differences in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ventricular systolic function. Background: The extent and distribution of volume overload and the associated implications for volume management have not been studied in decompensated HFpEF compared with HFrEF. Methods: Total blood volume (TBV) was quantitated using a standardized computer-based radiolabeled albumin dilution technique. Results: Twenty HFpEF and 35 HFrEF patients were evaluated at hospital admission. TBV was expanded by 27 ± 21% (range -5.2% to 77%, p = 0.002) and 37 ± 25% (0% to 107%, p <0.001), respectively, above normal volumes. Red cell mass (RBCM) was expanded in HFrEF (24 ± 31%, p = 0.004) but within normal limits in HFpEF (8 ± 34%, p = 0.660) with, however, large variability in both groups. RBCM excess was more prominent in HFrEF (63% vs. 45%) than the RBCM deficit in HFpEF (35% vs.14%). With diuresis, TBV decreased to 25 ± 20% (p = 0.029) in HFrEF but was not changed in HFpEF (18 ± 20% [p = 0.173]). Body weight declined 6.6 ± 4.4 kg in HFrEF and 10.5 ± 8.3 kg (p = 0.026) in HFpEF. Interstitial fluid losses accounted for 85 ± 13% (HFrEF) and 93 ± 6% (HFpEF) (p = 0.012) of total volume removed. Conclusions: TBV profiles differ between HFpEF and HFrEF patients with DCHF. Quantitated volume analysis revealed both significant RBCM (polycythemia) and plasma volume excess in HFrEF, whereas a higher RBCM deficit (true anemia) was demonstrated in HFpEF. Diuresis produced only a modest reduction in intravascular volumes with persistent hypervolemia in both groups at discharge, but overall more total body fluid was lost in HFpEF. These profile differences have implications for individualizing volume management.

AB - Objectives: This study aimed to characterize volume profiles and their differences in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ventricular systolic function. Background: The extent and distribution of volume overload and the associated implications for volume management have not been studied in decompensated HFpEF compared with HFrEF. Methods: Total blood volume (TBV) was quantitated using a standardized computer-based radiolabeled albumin dilution technique. Results: Twenty HFpEF and 35 HFrEF patients were evaluated at hospital admission. TBV was expanded by 27 ± 21% (range -5.2% to 77%, p = 0.002) and 37 ± 25% (0% to 107%, p <0.001), respectively, above normal volumes. Red cell mass (RBCM) was expanded in HFrEF (24 ± 31%, p = 0.004) but within normal limits in HFpEF (8 ± 34%, p = 0.660) with, however, large variability in both groups. RBCM excess was more prominent in HFrEF (63% vs. 45%) than the RBCM deficit in HFpEF (35% vs.14%). With diuresis, TBV decreased to 25 ± 20% (p = 0.029) in HFrEF but was not changed in HFpEF (18 ± 20% [p = 0.173]). Body weight declined 6.6 ± 4.4 kg in HFrEF and 10.5 ± 8.3 kg (p = 0.026) in HFpEF. Interstitial fluid losses accounted for 85 ± 13% (HFrEF) and 93 ± 6% (HFpEF) (p = 0.012) of total volume removed. Conclusions: TBV profiles differ between HFpEF and HFrEF patients with DCHF. Quantitated volume analysis revealed both significant RBCM (polycythemia) and plasma volume excess in HFrEF, whereas a higher RBCM deficit (true anemia) was demonstrated in HFpEF. Diuresis produced only a modest reduction in intravascular volumes with persistent hypervolemia in both groups at discharge, but overall more total body fluid was lost in HFpEF. These profile differences have implications for individualizing volume management.

KW - Decompensated chronic heart failure

KW - Diuretic therapy

KW - HFpEF

KW - HFrEF

KW - Total blood volume quantitation

KW - Volume overload

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959927146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959927146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jchf.2016.01.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jchf.2016.01.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 26970830

AN - SCOPUS:84959927146

JO - JACC: Heart Failure

JF - JACC: Heart Failure

SN - 2213-1779

ER -