Key result
Estimated plasma volume and IVC collapsibility indicate greater congestion in HFrEF versus other LVEF groups.
Why the study?
Assessing congestion in heart failure is challenging due to its multidimensional nature, involving intravascular expansion and systemic venous congestion, which ePVS and IVC-CI may complementarily capture.
Do estimated plasma volume status and inferior vena cava collapsibility index differ across heart failure phenotypes and correlate with each other in hospitalized HF patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=198)
No
Do estimated plasma volume status and inferior vena cava collapsibility index differ across heart failure phenotypes and correlate with each other in hospitalized HF patients?
p-value: p=<0.001
ePVS and IVC-CI reflect distinct but complementary aspects of congestion in heart failure, with both showing significant differences across LVEF phenotypes.
Supports differential congestion assessment by LVEF phenotype in hospitalized HF; hypothesis-generating for integrated ePVS-IVC-CI use.
<ns3:p>Background Congestion is a central feature of heart failure (HF) and a major driver of hospitalization and adverse outcomes. However, its assessment remains challenging due to its multidimensional nature, involving both intravascular volume expansion and systemic venous congestion. Estimated plasma volume status (ePVS) and inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-CI) are accessible, non-invasive markers that may provide complementary insights into volume status. Methods This cross-sectional study included 198 hospitalized patients with heart failure at a tertiary referral center. ePVS was calculated from hemoglobin and hematocrit values, while IVC-CI was assessed using transthoracic echocardiography. Patients were categorized into HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF groups. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate comparative tests, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results At admission, patients demonstrated elevated ePVS (5.26 ± 1.38) and reduced IVC-CI (19.07 ± 9.65), indicating the presence of congestion. ePVS differed significantly across LVEF groups (p = 0.007), with higher values observed in HFrEF. IVC-CI showed more pronounced differences (p < 0.001), with the lowest values in HFrEF, suggesting greater venous congestion. No significant association was observed between ePVS and most clinical variables. However, IVC-CI was significantly lower in patients with chronic kidney disease (p = 0.008). No strong correlation was found between ePVS and IVC-CI. Conclusion ePVS and IVC-CI reflect distinct but complementary aspects of congestion in heart failure. Their combined use may provide a more comprehensive and practical approach to assessing volume status across different heart failure phenotypes.</ns3:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khairuddin et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure (n=198). Estimated plasma volume status (ePVS) and inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-CI) vs. Different LVEF groups (HFrEF, HFmrEF, HFpEF) was evaluated on Differences in ePVS and IVC-CI across LVEF groups (p=<0.001). Estimated plasma volume status and inferior vena cava collapsibility index differed significantly across LVEF groups (p=0.007 and p<0.001), indicating greater congestion in HFrEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: