This retrospective analysis evaluated intravascular volume composition in patients with chronic heart failure (HF), focusing on whether a clinically categorized “normal blood volume (BV)” reliably reflects normal constituent elements. The author emphasizes that total BV can appear normal while the separate components — red blood cell (RBC) mass and plasma volume (PV) — vary substantially. Such discordance may conceal clinically important conditions like true anemia or erythrocytosis and may affect therapeutic decisions and outcomes.
The study analyzed 395 patients with Class II–III HF. Total BV, RBC mass, and PV were quantified using indicator-dilution methodology. The cohort was stratified by total BV into groups labeled as normal or hypervolemic; the source reports 31% of patients were categorized as having normal BV and 62% as hypervolemic. The manuscript and tabled data contain the reported measurements. The Mayo Foundation Institutional Research Review Board and Ethics Committee approved the study protocol, and the authors reported that necessary patient consent and reporting guidelines were followed.
Among the 395 patients, 123 (31%) demonstrated total BV within the study's defined normal range, while 244 (62%) were characterized as hypervolemic. The source does not provide additional breakdowns for the remaining patients beyond these percentages. The analysis then examined the composition of BV in the 123 patients with overall normal total BV to determine the relative contributions of RBC mass and PV.
Within the subgroup of 123 patients with normal total BV, only 36% (44/123) had a normal RBC mass. A majority, 60% (74/123), demonstrated an RBC mass deficit consistent with true anemia. Notably, standard hemoglobin thresholds under-detected this deficit: only 29% (36/123) of the normal BV subgroup had hemoglobin <12 g/dL despite 60% having reduced RBC mass. Erythrocytosis (an excess in RBC mass) was identified in 4% (5/123) of patients who otherwise had a normal total BV. These findings indicate that hemoglobin alone may not reliably identify true RBC mass abnormalities in HF patients with apparently normal total BV.
Plasma volume status varied within the normal BV subgroup. The source reports that 60% (74/123) of patients with normal total BV had normal PV, implying that 40% had PV expansion or contraction; precise counts for PV expansion versus contraction within that 40% were not detailed beyond the statement that PV abnormalities were present. Overall, only 30% (37/123) of patients with normal overall BV had both normal RBC mass and normal PV — i.e., a true normal intravascular composition.
These data show that a designation of normal total BV can mask divergent and clinically relevant alterations in its components. Two principal scenarios underlie this discordance: (1) compensatory shifts between RBC mass and PV that normalize total BV numerically while hiding anemia or erythrocytosis, and (2) isolated PV expansion or contraction offset by opposite changes in RBC mass. In this cohort, the dominant hidden abnormality within normal BV was an RBC mass deficit (true anemia) that was frequently not detected by hemoglobin criteria alone.
The author argues the findings have practical implications for HF management. Relying on total BV as a single metric may misdirect clinical assessment and therapy because it does not reveal the separate contributions of RBC mass and plasma volume. Unrecognized anemia or erythrocytosis and unmeasured PV abnormalities could influence volume management, diuretic strategy, transfusion decisions, or other interventions. The results support the value of quantitative measurement of BV components when precise intravascular composition is clinically relevant. Because the report is a preprint, the author notes that the findings have not been peer reviewed and should not yet be used to guide practice without further validation.
This work is a retrospective analysis and was reported as a preprint; it has not been certified by peer review. The source states the Mayo Foundation Institutional Research Review Board and Ethics Committee approved the protocol and that patient consent and reporting checklists were addressed. The authors declared no competing interests. Additional methodological details and full tables are reported in the manuscript; any data not explicitly provided in the source summary were not inferred here.