BACKGROUND: Peripheral blood hematocrit (red blood cell volume/total blood volume) is conventionally used to determine the need for blood transfusions. In critically ill surgical patients, this variable may not accurately approximate true red blood cell volume. We compared peripheral blood hematocrit to (1) plasma volume, (2) estimated circulating blood volume, and (3) a normalized hematocrit to clarify their relationships. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit were evaluated using the BVA-100 Blood Volume Analyzer (Daxor Corporation, New York City, NY). Plasma volume was directly measured by serial tagged albumin concentration. Red blood cell volume was calculated using plasma volume and the peripheral blood hematocrit result. All volumes were presented as percentage deviation from ideal volumes. These ideal volumes were obtained using a patented formula incorporating ideal body weight as determined by Metropolitan Life tables. The peripheral blood hematocrit was compared with a "normalized" hematocrit, defined as the hematocrit value if plasma volume was adjusted to a normal whole blood volume. RESULTS: Eighty-six data points were recorded for 40 patients with average age 61 +/- 20 yr, APACHE II score 20 +/- 6, and a 13% mortality rate. The primary reasons for admission were severe sepsis/septic shock (n = 11), hemorrhagic shock (n = 7), respiratory failure (n = 20), and cardiac failure (n = 2). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 3.4 +/- 7.8 hematocrit percentage points between normalized and peripheral blood hematocrit methods, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.7-5.1 and limits of agreement of +/-15.2 hematocrit percentage points. Peripheral blood hematocrit was lower than the normalized hematocrit in 48% of measurements, higher in 17%, and equivalent in 35%. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral blood hematocrit may not accurately estimate red blood cell volume in a cohort of critically ill surgical patients. This remains to be validated in a larger group of patients, comparing these results with the double isotope technique.
BACKGROUND: Peripheral blood hematocrit (red blood cell volume/total blood volume) is conventionally used to determine the need for blood transfusions. In critically ill surgical patients, this variable may not accurately approximate true red blood cell volume. We compared peripheral blood hematocrit to (1) plasma volume, (2) estimated circulating blood volume, and (3) a normalized hematocrit to clarify their relationships. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit were evaluated using the BVA-100 Blood Volume Analyzer (Daxor Corporation, New York City, NY). Plasma volume was directly measured by serial tagged albumin concentration. Red blood cell volume was calculated using plasma volume and the peripheral blood hematocrit result. All volumes were presented as percentage deviation from ideal volumes. These ideal volumes were obtained using a patented formula incorporating ideal body weight as determined by Metropolitan Life tables. The peripheral blood hematocrit was compared with a "normalized" hematocrit, defined as the hematocrit value if plasma volume was adjusted to a normal whole blood volume. RESULTS: Eighty-six data points were recorded for 40 patients with average age 61 +/- 20 yr, APACHE II score 20 +/- 6, and a 13% mortality rate. The primary reasons for admission were severe sepsis/septic shock (n = 11), hemorrhagic shock (n = 7), respiratory failure (n = 20), and cardiac failure (n = 2). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 3.4 +/- 7.8 hematocrit percentage points between normalized and peripheral blood hematocrit methods, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.7-5.1 and limits of agreement of +/-15.2 hematocrit percentage points. Peripheral blood hematocrit was lower than the normalized hematocrit in 48% of measurements, higher in 17%, and equivalent in 35%. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral blood hematocrit may not accurately estimate red blood cell volume in a cohort of critically ill surgical patients. This remains to be validated in a larger group of patients, comparing these results with the double isotope technique.