Key result
Estimated plasma volume status using the Kaplan formula acceptably predicted true plasma volume excess (AUC 0.72), whereas the Hakim formula was a poor predictor (AUC 0.65).
Why the study?
While estimated plasma volume based on anthropometric and blood parameters has been increasingly used, it was unclear whether it accurately predicts true plasma volume excess.
Does estimated plasma volume status using the Hakim or Kaplan formulas accurately predict true plasma volume excess in compensated chronic heart failure patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=47)
No
Does estimated plasma volume status using the Hakim or Kaplan formulas accurately predict true plasma volume excess in compensated chronic heart failure patients?
Effect estimate: AUC 0.72 for Kaplan formula, AUC 0.65 for Hakim formula
Estimated plasma volume status using the Hakim or Kaplan formulas has low positive predictive value for detecting true plasma volume excess and is not suitable for clinical decision-making in compensated heart failure patients.
Suggests the Kaplan formula may be preferred for non-invasive volume assessment; leaves open whether this estimation.
Plasma volume and especially plasma volume excess is a relevant predictor for the clinical outcome of heart failure patients. In recent years, estimated plasma volume based on anthropometric characteristics and blood parameters has been used whilst direct measurement of plasma volume has not entered clinical routine. It is unclear whether the estimation of plasma volume can predict a true plasma volume excess. Plasma volume was measured in 47 heart failure patients (CHF, 10 female) using an abbreviated carbon monoxide rebreathing method. Plasma volume and plasma volume status were also estimated based on two prediction formulas (Hakim, Kaplan). The predictive properties of the estimated plasma volume status to detect true plasma volume excess > 10% were analysed based on logistic regression and receiver operator characteristics. The area under the curve (AUC) to detect plasma volume excess based on calculation of plasma volume by the Hakim formula is 0.65 (with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.62 at a threshold of - 16.5%) whilst the AUC for the Kaplan formula is 0.72 (PPV = 0.67 at a threshold of - 6.3%). Only the estimated plasma volume status based on prediction of plasma volume by the Kaplan formula formally appears as an acceptable predictor of true plasma volume excess, whereas calculation based on the Hakim formula does not sufficiently predict a true plasma volume excess. The low positive predictive values for both methods suggest that plasma volume status estimation based on these formulas is not suitable for clinical decision making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahlgrim et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Compensated chronic heart failure (n=47). Estimated plasma volume status (Kaplan and Hakim formulas) vs. True plasma volume excess measured by abbreviated carbon monoxide rebreathing method was evaluated on Detection of true plasma volume excess > 10% (AUC 0.72 for Kaplan formula, AUC 0.65 for Hakim formula). Estimated plasma volume status using the Kaplan formula acceptably predicted true plasma volume excess (AUC 0.72), whereas the Hakim formula was a poor predictor (AUC 0.65).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: