Low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide in acute heart failure with renal dysfunction: the ROSE acute heart failure randomized trial

IMPORTANCE

Small studies suggest that low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide may enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction; however, neither strategy has been rigorously tested.

OBJECTIVE

To test the 2 independent hypotheses that, compared with placebo, addition of low-dose dopamine (2 μg/kg/min) or low-dose nesiritide (0.005 μg/kg/min without bolus) to diuretic therapy will enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation [ROSE]) of 360 hospitalized patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction (estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15-60 mL/min/1.73 m2), randomized within 24 hours of admission. Enrollment occurred from September 2010 to March 2013 across 26 sites in North America.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized in an open, 1:1 allocation ratio to the dopamine or nesiritide strategy. Within each strategy, participants were randomized in a double-blind, 2:1 ratio to active treatment or placebo. The dopamine (n = 122) and nesiritide (n = 119) groups were independently compared with the pooled placebo group (n = 119).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Coprimary end points included 72-hour cumulative urine volume (decongestion end point) and the change in serum cystatin C from enrollment to 72 hours (renal function end point).

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, low-dose dopamine had no significant effect on 72-hour cumulative urine volume (dopamine, 8524 mL; 95% CI, 7917-9131 vs placebo, 8296 mL; 95% CI, 7762-8830 ; difference, 229 mL; 95% CI, -714 to 1171 mL; P = .59) or on the change in cystatin C level (dopamine, 0.12 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.18 vs placebo, 0.11 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16; difference, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.10; P = .72). Similarly, low-dose nesiritide had no significant effect on 72-hour cumulative urine volume (nesiritide, 8574 mL; 95% CI, 8014-9134 vs placebo, 8296 mL; 95% CI, 7762-8830; difference, 279 mL; 95% CI, -618 to 1176 mL; P = .49) or on the change in cystatin C level (nesiritide, 0.07 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13 vs placebo, 0.11 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.05; P = .36). Compared with placebo, there was no effect of low-dose dopamine or nesiritide on secondary end points reflective of decongestion, renal function, or clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

In participants with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction, neither low-dose dopamine nor low-dose nesiritide enhanced decongestion or improved renal function when added to diuretic therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01132846.

Conceptual Hierarchies in a Flat Attractor Network: Dynamics of Learning and Computations

The structure of people's conceptual knowledge of concrete nouns has traditionally been viewed as hierarchical (Collins & Quillian, 1969). For example, superordinate concepts (vegetable) are assumed to reside at a higher level than basic-level concepts (carrot). A feature-based attractor network with a single layer of semantic features developed representations of both basic-level and superordinate concepts. No hierarchical structure was built into the network. In Experiment and Simulation 1, the graded structure of categories (typicality ratings) is accounted for by the flat attractor-network. Experiment and Simulation 2 show that, as with basic-level concepts, such a network predicts feature verification latencies for superordinate concepts (vegetable ). In Experiment and Simulation 3, counterintuitive results regarding the temporal dynamics of similarity in semantic priming are explained by the model. By treating both types of concepts the same in terms of representation, learning, and computations, the model provides new insights into semantic memory.

High mortality without ESCAPE: the registry of heart failure patients receiving pulmonary artery catheters without randomization

BACKGROUND

In the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE), there was no difference in days alive and out of the hospital for patients with decompensated heart failure randomly assigned to therapy guided by pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) plus clinical assessment versus clinical assessment alone. The external validity of these findings is debated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

ESCAPE sites enrolled 439 patients receiving PAC without randomization in a prospective registry. Baseline characteristics, pertinent trial exclusion criteria, reasons for PAC use, hemodynamics, and complications were collected. Survival was determined from the National Death Index and the Alberta Registry. On average, registry patients had lower blood pressure, worse renal function, less neurohormonal antagonist therapy, and higher use of intravenous inotropes compared with trial patients. Although clinical assessment anticipated less volume overload and greater hypoperfusion among the registry population, measured filling pressures were similarly elevated in the registry and trial patients, whereas measured perfusion was slightly higher among registry patients. Registry patients had longer hospitalization (13 vs 6 days, P < .001) and higher 6-month mortality (34% vs 20%, P < .001) than trial patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to use PAC without randomization identified a population with higher disease severity and risk of mortality. This prospective registry highlights the complex context of patient selection for randomized trials.

Admission or Changes in Renal Function During Hospitalization for Worsening Heart Failure Predict Postdischarge Survival

Background— Admission measures of renal function (blood urea nitrogen [BUN], estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]) in patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure are predictors of in-hospital outcomes. Less is known about the changes and relationships among these variables and the postdischarge survival rate.

Methods and Results— In a retrospective analysis of 949 patients from the Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Intravenous Milrinone for Exacerbations of Chronic Heart Failure, we investigated the relation between admission values and changes in BUN and eGFR and rate of death by 60 days after discharge. On admission, median eGFR was 51 mL � min −1 � 1.73 m −2 (interquartile range, 37 to 70 mL � min −1 � 1.73 m −2 ), and BUN was 25 mg/dL (interquartile range, 17 to 41 mg/dL). On average, there was a 1.1–mL � min −1 � 1.73 m −2 decrease in eGFR and a 4.7-mg/dL increase in BUN from admission to discharge. By discharge, 12% of patients had a >25% decrease in eGFR, and 39% had a >25% increase in BUN. Although both lower admission eGFR and higher admission BUN were associated with higher risk of death by 60 days after discharge, multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards analysis showed that BUN was a stronger predictor of death by 60 days than was eGFR (χ 2 , 11.6 and 0.6 for BUN and eGFR, respectively). Independently of admission values, an increase of ≥10 mg/dL in BUN during hospitalization was associated with worse 60-day survival rate: BUN (per 5-mg/dL increase) had a hazard ratio of 1.08 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.16). Although milrinone treatment led to a minor improvement in renal function by discharge, the 60-day death and readmission rates were similar between the milrinone and placebo groups.

Conclusions— A substantial number of patients admitted with heart failure have worsening renal function during hospitalization. Higher admission BUN and increasing BUN during hospitalization, independently of admission values, are associated with a worse survival rate. Use of milrinone in these high-risk patients does not improve outcomes despite minor improvements in the renal function.

Rapid assay brain natriuretic peptide and troponin I in patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure (from the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness Trial)

Rapid-assay biomarkers may predict outcomes in patients with decompensated heart failure (HF). This study assessed whether rapid-assay B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and troponin I predicts length of stay and mortality and correlates with pulmonary artery catheter (PAC)-derived hemodynamics in patients hospitalized with acute HF. There were 141 nonconsecutive patients in this prospective cohort study of the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE), a randomized trial testing PACs in 433 patients with severe decompensated HF. Biomarkers were drawn at baseline and discharge and when the first, second, and final hemodynamics were obtained in 69 patients randomly assigned to PACs. Cox analysis was used to model mortality, length of stay, and rehospitalization, and Pearson's correlations were used to describe the relation among BNP, troponin I, and PAC-derived hemodynamics. The median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) BNP levels were 783 pg/ml (329, 1,565) at baseline and 468 pg/ml (240, 946) at discharge. After treatment for HF, the median BNP level decreased by 144 pg/ml (-653, 55; p = 0.004). Patients with baseline BNP levels >1,500 pg/ml had greater mortality at 6 months and almost twice the length of stay as patients with BNP levels <500 pg/ml (10.1 vs 5.7 days, p = 0.002). Troponin I did not predict these outcomes. First BNP correlated modestly with first right atrial pressure (r = 0.47, p = 0.005) and first pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (r = 0.54, p = 0.001). Final BNP correlated modestly with final right atrial pressure (r = 0.63, p = 0.001). In conclusion, patients with BNP >1,500 pg/ml had greater mortality and longer length of stay than patients with BNP <500 pg/ml. BNP decreased after hospitalization, but correlated modestly with PAC-derived hemodynamics. Rapid-assay BNP may provide information that helps physicians decide when to pursue more aggressive and invasive therapies.