Cargando…

Variability of the f-cell ratio after treatment of traumatic hemorrhagic shock

PURPOSE: Measuring total blood volume (TBV) in critically ill patients, using isotope techniques to determine red cell volume (RBCV) and plasma volume (PV) is laborious. Recently, PV measurement using a single bolus dose of tracers has been validated, thus, allowing TBV calculation using large venou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khan, Faraz A., Mullins, Richard, Ledgerwood, Anna M., Lucas, Charles E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6180436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30319776
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2018.10.001
_version_ 1783362198091857920
author Khan, Faraz A.
Mullins, Richard
Ledgerwood, Anna M.
Lucas, Charles E.
author_facet Khan, Faraz A.
Mullins, Richard
Ledgerwood, Anna M.
Lucas, Charles E.
author_sort Khan, Faraz A.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Measuring total blood volume (TBV) in critically ill patients, using isotope techniques to determine red cell volume (RBCV) and plasma volume (PV) is laborious. Recently, PV measurement using a single bolus dose of tracers has been validated, thus, allowing TBV calculation using large venous hematocrit (LVHCT). However, this technique relies on using a correlation factor, the f-cell ratio, to adjust for differences in LVHCT and total body hematocrit (TBHCT). The normal f-cell ratio is 0.9 but has never been studied in patients recovering from hemorrhagic shock (HS). This study assesses the f-cell ratio at different phases after HS to determine accuracy in calculating TBV. METHODS: 114 injured patients requiring immediate operation for HS were studied. All patients had measurements of PV and RBCV via isotope dilution enabling measurements of TBHCT. Correlation of LVHCT and TBHCT were used to calculate the f-cell ratio in the fluid sequestration (n = 81) and in the fluid mobilization period (n = 108). RESULTS: The f-cell ratio (mean ± SD) averaged 0.89 ± 0.15 and 0.90 ± 0.01 in the first and second halves of the fluid sequestration period versus 0.90 ± 0.2 and 0.80 ± 0.07 in the first and second 48 h of the fluid mobilization period. The f-cell ratio was significantly lower (p=<0.001) in the mobilization period. CONCLUSIONS: These data show for the first time that using PV and LVHCT to calculate TBV after HS is unreliable. The mechanisms causing this variation in f-cell ratio is unknown but likely related to capillary/interstitial dynamics and needs further scientific study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6180436
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61804362018-10-12 Variability of the f-cell ratio after treatment of traumatic hemorrhagic shock Khan, Faraz A. Mullins, Richard Ledgerwood, Anna M. Lucas, Charles E. Ann Med Surg (Lond) Case Report PURPOSE: Measuring total blood volume (TBV) in critically ill patients, using isotope techniques to determine red cell volume (RBCV) and plasma volume (PV) is laborious. Recently, PV measurement using a single bolus dose of tracers has been validated, thus, allowing TBV calculation using large venous hematocrit (LVHCT). However, this technique relies on using a correlation factor, the f-cell ratio, to adjust for differences in LVHCT and total body hematocrit (TBHCT). The normal f-cell ratio is 0.9 but has never been studied in patients recovering from hemorrhagic shock (HS). This study assesses the f-cell ratio at different phases after HS to determine accuracy in calculating TBV. METHODS: 114 injured patients requiring immediate operation for HS were studied. All patients had measurements of PV and RBCV via isotope dilution enabling measurements of TBHCT. Correlation of LVHCT and TBHCT were used to calculate the f-cell ratio in the fluid sequestration (n = 81) and in the fluid mobilization period (n = 108). RESULTS: The f-cell ratio (mean ± SD) averaged 0.89 ± 0.15 and 0.90 ± 0.01 in the first and second halves of the fluid sequestration period versus 0.90 ± 0.2 and 0.80 ± 0.07 in the first and second 48 h of the fluid mobilization period. The f-cell ratio was significantly lower (p=<0.001) in the mobilization period. CONCLUSIONS: These data show for the first time that using PV and LVHCT to calculate TBV after HS is unreliable. The mechanisms causing this variation in f-cell ratio is unknown but likely related to capillary/interstitial dynamics and needs further scientific study. Elsevier 2018-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6180436/ /pubmed/30319776 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2018.10.001 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IJS Publishing Group Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Case Report
Khan, Faraz A.
Mullins, Richard
Ledgerwood, Anna M.
Lucas, Charles E.
Variability of the f-cell ratio after treatment of traumatic hemorrhagic shock
title Variability of the f-cell ratio after treatment of traumatic hemorrhagic shock
title_full Variability of the f-cell ratio after treatment of traumatic hemorrhagic shock
title_fullStr Variability of the f-cell ratio after treatment of traumatic hemorrhagic shock
title_full_unstemmed Variability of the f-cell ratio after treatment of traumatic hemorrhagic shock
title_short Variability of the f-cell ratio after treatment of traumatic hemorrhagic shock
title_sort variability of the f-cell ratio after treatment of traumatic hemorrhagic shock
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6180436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30319776
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2018.10.001
work_keys_str_mv AT khanfaraza variabilityofthefcellratioaftertreatmentoftraumatichemorrhagicshock
AT mullinsrichard variabilityofthefcellratioaftertreatmentoftraumatichemorrhagicshock
AT ledgerwoodannam variabilityofthefcellratioaftertreatmentoftraumatichemorrhagicshock
AT lucascharlese variabilityofthefcellratioaftertreatmentoftraumatichemorrhagicshock