Diagnostic Utility of Blood Volume Monitoring in Hemodialysis Patients

Rajiv Agarwal, Ken Kelley, Robert P. Light

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Assessment of volume state is difficult in hemodialysis patients. Whether continuous blood volume monitoring can improve the assessment of volume state is unclear. Study Design: Diagnostic test study. Settings & Participants: Asymptomatic long-term hemodialysis patients (n = 150) in 4 university-affiliated hemodialysis units. Index Tests: Ultrafiltration rate (UFR) divided by postdialysis weight (UFR index), slopes of relative blood volume (RBV), RBV slope corrected for UFR and weight (volume index). Reference Tests: Dialysis-related symptoms and echocardiographic signs of volume excess and volume depletion, assessed by using inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter after dialysis and its collapse on inspiration. Volume excess was defined as values in the upper third of IVC diameter or lower third of IVC collapse on inspiration. Volume depletion was defined as values in the lower third of IVC diameter or upper third of IVC collapse on inspiration. Results: Mean UFR was 8.3 ± 3.8 (SD) mL/h/kg. Mean RBV slope was -2.32% ± 1.50%/h. Mean volume index was -0.25% ± 0.17%/h/mL/h ultrafiltration/kg. Volume index provided the best fit of observed RBV slopes. Volume index was related to dizziness, the need to decrease UFR, and placement in Trendelenberg position. RBV and volume index, but not UFR index, were related to echocardiographic markers of volume excess and depletion. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict volume excess were 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63) for UFR index, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.83) for RBV slope, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86) for volume index. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict volume depletion were 0.56 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.74) for UFR index, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.72) for RBV slope, and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.76) for volume index. Limitations: Dialysis-related symptoms and echocardiographic findings are not validated measures of volume. Our results were not adjusted for demographic or clinical characteristics; performance characteristics of the indices may differ across populations. Conclusions: Volume index appears to be a novel marker of volume, but requires validation studies, and its utility needs to be tested in clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)242-254
Number of pages13
JournalAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume51
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2008

Fingerprint

Ultrafiltration
Blood Volume
Renal Dialysis
Inferior Vena Cava
Confidence Intervals
Dialysis
ROC Curve
Weights and Measures
Validation Studies
Dizziness
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Signs and Symptoms
Demography
Clinical Trials

Keywords

  • blood volume monitoring
  • diagnostic test studies
  • echocardiograms
  • Hemodialysis
  • intradialytic hypotension
  • volume overload

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology

Cite this

Diagnostic Utility of Blood Volume Monitoring in Hemodialysis Patients. / Agarwal, Rajiv; Kelley, Ken; Light, Robert P.

In: American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 51, No. 2, 02.2008, p. 242-254.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{126a7460e70d4d9ab611baea0e5bf629,
title = "Diagnostic Utility of Blood Volume Monitoring in Hemodialysis Patients",
abstract = "Background: Assessment of volume state is difficult in hemodialysis patients. Whether continuous blood volume monitoring can improve the assessment of volume state is unclear. Study Design: Diagnostic test study. Settings & Participants: Asymptomatic long-term hemodialysis patients (n = 150) in 4 university-affiliated hemodialysis units. Index Tests: Ultrafiltration rate (UFR) divided by postdialysis weight (UFR index), slopes of relative blood volume (RBV), RBV slope corrected for UFR and weight (volume index). Reference Tests: Dialysis-related symptoms and echocardiographic signs of volume excess and volume depletion, assessed by using inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter after dialysis and its collapse on inspiration. Volume excess was defined as values in the upper third of IVC diameter or lower third of IVC collapse on inspiration. Volume depletion was defined as values in the lower third of IVC diameter or upper third of IVC collapse on inspiration. Results: Mean UFR was 8.3 ± 3.8 (SD) mL/h/kg. Mean RBV slope was -2.32{\%} ± 1.50{\%}/h. Mean volume index was -0.25{\%} ± 0.17{\%}/h/mL/h ultrafiltration/kg. Volume index provided the best fit of observed RBV slopes. Volume index was related to dizziness, the need to decrease UFR, and placement in Trendelenberg position. RBV and volume index, but not UFR index, were related to echocardiographic markers of volume excess and depletion. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict volume excess were 0.48 (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63) for UFR index, 0.71 (95{\%} CI, 0.60 to 0.83) for RBV slope, and 0.73 (95{\%} CI, 0.59 to 0.86) for volume index. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict volume depletion were 0.56 (95{\%} CI, 0.38 to 0.74) for UFR index, 0.55 (95{\%} CI, 0.38 to 0.72) for RBV slope, and 0.62 (95{\%} CI, 0.48 to 0.76) for volume index. Limitations: Dialysis-related symptoms and echocardiographic findings are not validated measures of volume. Our results were not adjusted for demographic or clinical characteristics; performance characteristics of the indices may differ across populations. Conclusions: Volume index appears to be a novel marker of volume, but requires validation studies, and its utility needs to be tested in clinical trials.",
keywords = "blood volume monitoring, diagnostic test studies, echocardiograms, Hemodialysis, intradialytic hypotension, volume overload",
author = "Rajiv Agarwal and Ken Kelley and Light, {Robert P.}",
year = "2008",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.10.036",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "242--254",
journal = "American Journal of Kidney Diseases",
issn = "0272-6386",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic Utility of Blood Volume Monitoring in Hemodialysis Patients

AU - Agarwal, Rajiv

AU - Kelley, Ken

AU - Light, Robert P.

PY - 2008/2

Y1 - 2008/2

N2 - Background: Assessment of volume state is difficult in hemodialysis patients. Whether continuous blood volume monitoring can improve the assessment of volume state is unclear. Study Design: Diagnostic test study. Settings & Participants: Asymptomatic long-term hemodialysis patients (n = 150) in 4 university-affiliated hemodialysis units. Index Tests: Ultrafiltration rate (UFR) divided by postdialysis weight (UFR index), slopes of relative blood volume (RBV), RBV slope corrected for UFR and weight (volume index). Reference Tests: Dialysis-related symptoms and echocardiographic signs of volume excess and volume depletion, assessed by using inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter after dialysis and its collapse on inspiration. Volume excess was defined as values in the upper third of IVC diameter or lower third of IVC collapse on inspiration. Volume depletion was defined as values in the lower third of IVC diameter or upper third of IVC collapse on inspiration. Results: Mean UFR was 8.3 ± 3.8 (SD) mL/h/kg. Mean RBV slope was -2.32% ± 1.50%/h. Mean volume index was -0.25% ± 0.17%/h/mL/h ultrafiltration/kg. Volume index provided the best fit of observed RBV slopes. Volume index was related to dizziness, the need to decrease UFR, and placement in Trendelenberg position. RBV and volume index, but not UFR index, were related to echocardiographic markers of volume excess and depletion. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict volume excess were 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63) for UFR index, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.83) for RBV slope, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86) for volume index. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict volume depletion were 0.56 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.74) for UFR index, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.72) for RBV slope, and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.76) for volume index. Limitations: Dialysis-related symptoms and echocardiographic findings are not validated measures of volume. Our results were not adjusted for demographic or clinical characteristics; performance characteristics of the indices may differ across populations. Conclusions: Volume index appears to be a novel marker of volume, but requires validation studies, and its utility needs to be tested in clinical trials.

AB - Background: Assessment of volume state is difficult in hemodialysis patients. Whether continuous blood volume monitoring can improve the assessment of volume state is unclear. Study Design: Diagnostic test study. Settings & Participants: Asymptomatic long-term hemodialysis patients (n = 150) in 4 university-affiliated hemodialysis units. Index Tests: Ultrafiltration rate (UFR) divided by postdialysis weight (UFR index), slopes of relative blood volume (RBV), RBV slope corrected for UFR and weight (volume index). Reference Tests: Dialysis-related symptoms and echocardiographic signs of volume excess and volume depletion, assessed by using inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter after dialysis and its collapse on inspiration. Volume excess was defined as values in the upper third of IVC diameter or lower third of IVC collapse on inspiration. Volume depletion was defined as values in the lower third of IVC diameter or upper third of IVC collapse on inspiration. Results: Mean UFR was 8.3 ± 3.8 (SD) mL/h/kg. Mean RBV slope was -2.32% ± 1.50%/h. Mean volume index was -0.25% ± 0.17%/h/mL/h ultrafiltration/kg. Volume index provided the best fit of observed RBV slopes. Volume index was related to dizziness, the need to decrease UFR, and placement in Trendelenberg position. RBV and volume index, but not UFR index, were related to echocardiographic markers of volume excess and depletion. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict volume excess were 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63) for UFR index, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.83) for RBV slope, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86) for volume index. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict volume depletion were 0.56 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.74) for UFR index, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.72) for RBV slope, and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.76) for volume index. Limitations: Dialysis-related symptoms and echocardiographic findings are not validated measures of volume. Our results were not adjusted for demographic or clinical characteristics; performance characteristics of the indices may differ across populations. Conclusions: Volume index appears to be a novel marker of volume, but requires validation studies, and its utility needs to be tested in clinical trials.

KW - blood volume monitoring

KW - diagnostic test studies

KW - echocardiograms

KW - Hemodialysis

KW - intradialytic hypotension

KW - volume overload

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=38149054004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=38149054004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.10.036

DO - 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.10.036

M3 - Article

C2 - 18215702

AN - SCOPUS:38149054004

VL - 51

SP - 242

EP - 254

JO - American Journal of Kidney Diseases

JF - American Journal of Kidney Diseases

SN - 0272-6386

IS - 2

ER -