总血容量算法在肥胖和重度肥胖中的表现

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 HEMATOLOGY
Caitlin Raymond, Ninet Sinaii, Kamille West-Mitchell
{"title":"总血容量算法在肥胖和重度肥胖中的表现","authors":"Caitlin Raymond,&nbsp;Ninet Sinaii,&nbsp;Kamille West-Mitchell","doi":"10.1002/jca.70038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Amid the ongoing obesity epidemic, the estimation of total blood volume (TBV) in obese people remains hotly contested without common agreement among apheresis practitioners. We compare the results of estimated TBV from different formulas across a spectrum of obese BMIs from a cohort of 155 individual patients. We also plot the difference between the resulting TBVs, assigning a threshold of functional significance of 500 mL, at which the choice of formula might make an impact on patient care. We compare the mean TBV estimated in non-severe versus severe obesity for all the above algorithms and determine the impact of algorithm choice on various apheresis procedures. The choice of algorithm has a significant impact on apheresis procedures; for example, we found differences of up to ~3–4 plasma units for a therapeutic plasma exchange depending on the choice of algorithm applied. We additionally find that algorithm performance varies widely in both men and women, particularly in morbid obesity, and often produces values that fall outside an empirically chosen expected range. We do not find a clinically significant difference in mean estimated TBV between non-severe and severe obesity in any algorithm tested, suggesting that physiological changes in obesity may fail to be captured by these algorithms. We hope these results are useful to other apheresis practitioners and help them make an informed choice of algorithm to estimate TBV in their obese patients. However, our current algorithms for estimating TBV may be flawed, and the field may wish to move toward measurement of TBV using recently available commercial options.</p>","PeriodicalId":15390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","volume":"40 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jca.70038","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of Total Blood Volume Algorithms in Obesity and Severe Obesity\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin Raymond,&nbsp;Ninet Sinaii,&nbsp;Kamille West-Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jca.70038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Amid the ongoing obesity epidemic, the estimation of total blood volume (TBV) in obese people remains hotly contested without common agreement among apheresis practitioners. We compare the results of estimated TBV from different formulas across a spectrum of obese BMIs from a cohort of 155 individual patients. We also plot the difference between the resulting TBVs, assigning a threshold of functional significance of 500 mL, at which the choice of formula might make an impact on patient care. We compare the mean TBV estimated in non-severe versus severe obesity for all the above algorithms and determine the impact of algorithm choice on various apheresis procedures. The choice of algorithm has a significant impact on apheresis procedures; for example, we found differences of up to ~3–4 plasma units for a therapeutic plasma exchange depending on the choice of algorithm applied. We additionally find that algorithm performance varies widely in both men and women, particularly in morbid obesity, and often produces values that fall outside an empirically chosen expected range. We do not find a clinically significant difference in mean estimated TBV between non-severe and severe obesity in any algorithm tested, suggesting that physiological changes in obesity may fail to be captured by these algorithms. We hope these results are useful to other apheresis practitioners and help them make an informed choice of algorithm to estimate TBV in their obese patients. However, our current algorithms for estimating TBV may be flawed, and the field may wish to move toward measurement of TBV using recently available commercial options.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Apheresis\",\"volume\":\"40 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jca.70038\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Apheresis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jca.70038\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jca.70038","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在持续的肥胖流行中,肥胖者的总血容量(TBV)的估计仍然存在激烈的争论,在采血从业者中没有共同的共识。我们比较了155名个体患者的肥胖bmi谱中不同公式估计TBV的结果。我们还绘制了结果TBVs之间的差异,指定了500 mL的功能显著性阈值,在这个阈值上,配方的选择可能会对患者护理产生影响。我们比较了上述所有算法在非严重肥胖和严重肥胖中估计的平均TBV,并确定算法选择对各种采血程序的影响。算法的选择对分离过程有显著影响;例如,我们发现治疗性血浆交换的差异可达~ 3-4个血浆单位,这取决于所应用算法的选择。我们还发现,算法在男性和女性中的表现差异很大,尤其是在病态肥胖方面,而且通常产生的值超出了经验选择的预期范围。我们没有发现在任何测试的算法中,非严重肥胖和严重肥胖之间的平均估计TBV有显著的临床差异,这表明这些算法可能无法捕获肥胖的生理变化。我们希望这些结果对其他采血从业者有用,并帮助他们做出明智的算法选择来估计肥胖患者的TBV。然而,我们目前估计TBV的算法可能存在缺陷,该领域可能希望使用最近可用的商业选择来测量TBV。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Performance of Total Blood Volume Algorithms in Obesity and Severe Obesity

Amid the ongoing obesity epidemic, the estimation of total blood volume (TBV) in obese people remains hotly contested without common agreement among apheresis practitioners. We compare the results of estimated TBV from different formulas across a spectrum of obese BMIs from a cohort of 155 individual patients. We also plot the difference between the resulting TBVs, assigning a threshold of functional significance of 500 mL, at which the choice of formula might make an impact on patient care. We compare the mean TBV estimated in non-severe versus severe obesity for all the above algorithms and determine the impact of algorithm choice on various apheresis procedures. The choice of algorithm has a significant impact on apheresis procedures; for example, we found differences of up to ~3–4 plasma units for a therapeutic plasma exchange depending on the choice of algorithm applied. We additionally find that algorithm performance varies widely in both men and women, particularly in morbid obesity, and often produces values that fall outside an empirically chosen expected range. We do not find a clinically significant difference in mean estimated TBV between non-severe and severe obesity in any algorithm tested, suggesting that physiological changes in obesity may fail to be captured by these algorithms. We hope these results are useful to other apheresis practitioners and help them make an informed choice of algorithm to estimate TBV in their obese patients. However, our current algorithms for estimating TBV may be flawed, and the field may wish to move toward measurement of TBV using recently available commercial options.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
13.30%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Apheresis publishes articles dealing with all aspects of hemapheresis. Articles welcomed for review include those reporting basic research and clinical applications of therapeutic plasma exchange, therapeutic cytapheresis, therapeutic absorption, blood component collection and transfusion, donor recruitment and safety, administration of hemapheresis centers, and innovative applications of hemapheresis technology. Experimental studies, clinical trials, case reports, and concise reviews will be welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信