Volume Overload Profiles in Patients With Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction Chronic Heart Failure Are There Differences? A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to characterize volume profiles and their differences in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ventricular systolic function. BACKGROUND The extent and distribution of volume overload and the associated implications for volume management have not been studied in decompensated HFpEF compared with HFrEF. METHODS Total blood volume (TBV) was quantitated using a standardized computer-based radiolabeled albumin dilution technique. RESULTS Twenty HFpEF and 35 HFrEF patients were evaluated at hospital admission. TBV was expanded by 27 21% (range-5.2% to 77%; p = 0.002) and 37 +/- 25% (0% to 107%; p < 0.001), respectively, above normal volumes. Red cell mass (RBCM) was expanded in HFrEF (24 +/- 31%; p = 0.004) but within normal limits in HFpEF (8 +/- 34%; p = 0.660) with, however, large variability in both groups. RBCM excess was more prominent in HFrEF (63% vs. 45%) than the RBCM deficit in HFpEF (35% vs.14%). With diuresis, TBV decreased to 25 +/- 20% (p = 0.029) in HFrEF but was not changed in HFpEF (18 +/- 20% [p = 0.173]). Body weight declined 6.6 +/- 4.4 kg in HFrEF and 10.5 +/- 8.3 kg (p = 0.026) in HFpEF. Interstitial fluid losses accounted for 85 +/- 13% (HFrEF) and 93 +/- 6% (HFpEF) (p = 0.012) of total volume removed. CONCLUSIONS TBV profiles differ between HFpEF and HFrEF patients with DCHF. Quantitated volume analysis revealed both significant RBCM (polycythemia) and plasma volume excess in HFrEF, whereas a higher RBCM deficit (true anemia) was demonstrated in HFpEF. Diuresis produced only a modest reduction in intravascular volumes with persistent hypervolemia in both groups at discharge, but overall more total body fluid was lost in HFpEF. These profile differences have implications for individualizing volume management. (C) 2016 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.