Ultrafiltration versus intravenous diuretic therapy to treat acute heart failure: a systematic review

Safety and efficacy of ultrafiltration versus diuretics in patients with decompensated heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ultrafiltration (UF) is used for fluid removal patients with acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) refractory to diuretics. However, data on the relative merits of UF and diuretics are limited.

METHODS

Online databases were queried to identify clinical trials on the comparison of UF and diuretics. The major adverse cardiovascular (MACE) and its components (mortality and re-hospitalizations) were compared using the random-effects model to calculate the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 10 clinical trials comprising 838 patients (413 UF, 425 diuretics) were included in the analysis. At a median follow-up of 90 days, there was no significant difference in the odds of MACE (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.07) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77-1.52) between patients undergoing UF compared with those receiving diuretics therapy. The need for emergency department visits (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.38-2.90), all-cause admissions (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.30) and heart failure-related re-hospitalization (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21-1.02) was also similar between the two groups. The in-hospital risk for hypotension (OR 0.49, 0.23-1.04) and post-therapy creatinine rise>0.3 mg/dL (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74-1.89) was also not significantly different between the UF and diuretics arms. A sensitivity analysis of MACE and mortality did not show any deviation from the pooled outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFrEF, UF appears to be safe but might not provide significant benefits in terms of reducing the risk of mortality or readmission rates compared with those treated with diuretics.

Efficacy and Renal Tolerability of Ultrafiltration in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of 19 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a life-threatening and costly disease. Controversy remains regarding the efficacy and renal tolerability of ultrafiltration for treating ADHF. We therefore performed this meta-analysis to evaluate this clinical issue.Methods: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database of controlled trials was performed from inception to March 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials. The quality of the included trials and outcomes was evaluated with the use of the risk of bias assessment tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, respectively. The risk ratio and the standardized mean difference (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) were computed and pooled with fixed-effects or random-effects models.Results: This meta-analysis included 19 studies involving 1281 patients. Ultrafiltration was superior to the control treatments for weight loss (WMD 1.24 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38‐2.09 kg, P=0.004) and fluid removal (WMD 1.55 L, 95% CI 0.51‐2.59 l, P=0.003) and was associated with a significant increase in serum creatinine level compared with the control treatments (SMD 0.15 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.00‐0.30 mg/dL, P=0.04). However, no significant effects were found for serum N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide level, length of hospital stay, all-cause mortality, or all-cause rehospitalization in the ultrafiltration group.Conclusions: The use of ultrafiltration in patients with ADHF is superior to the use of the control treatments for weight loss and fluid removal, but has adverse renal effects and lacks significant effects on long-term prognosis, indicating that this approach to decongestion in ADHF patients is efficient for fluid management but less safe renally.

Outcomes With Ultrafiltration Among Hospitalized Patients With Acute Heart Failure (from the National Inpatient Sample)

Acute heart failure (HF) management is a complex and often involves a delicate balance of both cardiac and renal systems. Although pharmacologic diuresis is a mainstay of the pharmacologic management of decompensated HF, ultrafiltration (UF) represents a nonpharmacologic approach in the setting of diuretic resistance. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the 2009 through 2014 hospitalization data from the National Inpatient Sample. The study population consisted of hospitalizations with a discharge Diagnosis Related Groups of HF who were older than 18 years of age, did not have end-stage kidney disease, acute kidney injury and had not undergone hemodialysis or hemofiltration. There were 6,174 hospitalizations which included UF among the 7,799,915 hospitalizations for HF. Hospitalizations which included UF were among patients significantly younger in age (68.1 ± 1.0 vs 73.8 ± 0.1 years), male (61.9% vs 47.7%), and with higher prevalence of co-morbid conditions including chronic kidney disease (58% vs 31%), diabetes mellitus (53% vs 42%), and higher rates of co-morbidity (Charlson comorbidity score ≥2, 92% vs 80%). All-cause mortality was significantly higher among hospitalizations which included an UF (4.68% vs 2.24%). Hospitalizations with UF had a longer mean length of stay (6.2 vs 4.3 days, p <0.01) average total charges ($42,035 vs 24,867 USD, p <0.01) as compared with those without UF. Hospitalizations with UF were associated with a greater adjusted odds of all-cause mortality (odds ratio: 3.36, [95% confidence interval 1.76,6.40]), greater than DRG-level target length of stay (odds ratio, 2.46; [95 confidence interval 1.65,3.67]), and a 72% increase in the average hospital charges. In conclusion, hospitalizations which included UF identified a subgroup of HF patients with more co-morbid conditions who are at higher risk of mortality and increased resource burden in terms of length of stay and costs. These findings also highlight that the need for UF may identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a multidisciplinary cardiorenal approach to alter the trajectory of their disease.

Renal Dysfunction in Cirrhosis: Critical Care Management

Cirrhotic patients with manifestations of the end-stage liver disease have a high risk for developing renal dysfunction even with minor insults. The development of renal dysfunction increases the morbidity and mortality of these patients. Causes of renal dysfunction in cirrhotics can be due to hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) or acute kidney injury (AKI) resulting from prerenal, renal, and postrenal causes. Development of pretransplant renal dysfunction has been shown to affect post-liver transplantation outcomes. Early detection and aggressive strategies for the prevention of further progression of renal dysfunction seem to decrease the morbidity and improve survival in this group of patients. This article aims to outline the pathogenesis of renal dysfunction in cirrhosis, etiological factors, and evaluation of renal dysfunction, strategies for aggressive therapy for renal dysfunction, the indications of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in this group of patients, and the various modalities of RRT with their merits and demerits. A thorough understanding of the pathogenesis, early detection, and aggressive corrective measures for AKI can prevent further progression. In conclusion, a good knowledge of treatment modalities available for renal dysfunction in cirrhosis and institution of timely interventions can significantly improve survival in this group of patients.

Saudi Heart Association (SHA) guidelines for the management of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and negatively impacts quality of life, healthcare costs, and longevity. Although data on HF in the Arab population are scarce, recently developed regional registries are a step forward to evaluating the quality of current patient care and providing an overview of the clinical picture. Despite the burden of HF in Saudi Arabia, there are currently no standardized protocols or guidelines for the management of patients with acute or chronic heart failure. Therefore, the Heart Failure Expert Committee, comprising 13 local specialists representing both public and private sectors, has developed guidelines to address the needs and challenges for the diagnosis and treatment of HF in Saudi Arabia. The ultimate aim of these guidelines is to assist healthcare professionals in delivering optimal care and standardized clinical practice across Saudi Arabia.

Readmission rate after ultrafiltration in acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Significance of ultrafiltration in acute decompensated heart failure remains unclear. We performed meta-analysis to determine its role in reducing readmissions after acute decompensated heart failure. MEDLINE was searched using PUBMED from inception to March 22, 2017 for prospective randomized control trials comparing ultrafiltration to diuretics in acute decompensated heart failure. Five hundred ninety studies were found; nine studies with 820 patients were included. Studies with renal replacement therapy bar ultrafiltration, chronic decompensated heart failure, and non-English language were excluded. RevMan Version 5.3 was used for analysis. The primary outcomes analyzed were cumulative and 90 days readmissions secondary to heart failure and all-cause readmissions. Baseline characteristics were similar. One hundred eighty-eight patients were readmitted with heart failure, 77 vs 111 favoring ultrafiltration; risk ratio (RR) = 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-1.02, p = 0.07, I ²  = 47%). Ninety days readmissions were 43 vs 67 favoring ultrafiltration; RR = 0.65 (95%CI, 0.47-0.90, p = 0.01, I ²  = 0%). Ultrafiltration showed significantly higher fluid removal and weight loss. Hypotension was common in ultrafiltration (24 vs 13, OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 0.98-4.32, p = 0.06, I ²  = 0%). Ultrafiltration showed reduced 90 days heart failure readmissions and trend towards reduced cumulative hospital readmissions. Renal and cardiovascular outcomes and hospital stay were similar.

[Congestive heart failure: Treatment with ultrafiltration]

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence rate of congestive heart failure is approximately 2% in high-income countries. The aim of this study was to assess the overall benefit of ultrafiltration therapy in patients with acute or persistent congestive heart failure.

METHODS

We conducted a health technology assessment following the EUnetHTA guidelines, with systematic literature review from bibliographic medical databases, independent experts and manufacturer interviews.

RESULTS

Thirteen clinical trials and five meta-analyses were examined. In the most recent one, 608 patients were included, of which 304 received ultrafiltration therapy and 304 received intravenous loop diuretics. Ultrafiltration therapy seems to be more beneficial regarding the fluid removal and the body weight reduction, (mean difference respectively 1.44kg, IC95% [0.29; 2.59], P-value=0.01 and 1.28L [0.43; 2.12], P-value=0.003). No difference has been showed in overall mortality, renal function, hospital readmission or safety. Medico-economic studies are incomplete and contradictory.

CONCLUSION

Ultrafiltration therapy seems to be effective, most likely for patients ineligible or resistant to intravenous diuretics. But most topics remain uncertain, mainly impact on overall mortality, safety and cost-effectiveness. Given these knowledge-gaps, the generalization of ultrafiltration therapy should be examined cautiously, and conditional upon a large-scale systematic evaluation.

A Clinical Approach to the Acute Cardiorenal Syndrome

Acute kidney injury is a frequent complication of acute heart failure syndromes, portending an adverse prognosis. Acute cardiorenal syndrome represents a unique form of acute kidney injury specific to acute heart failure syndromes. The pathophysiology of acute cardiorenal syndrome involves renal venous congestion, ineffective forward flow, and impaired renal autoregulation caused by neurohormonal activation. Biomarkers reflecting different aspects of acute cardiorenal syndrome pathophysiology may allow patient phenotyping to inform prognosis and treatment. Adjunctive vasoactive, neurohormonal, and diuretic therapies may relieve congestive symptoms and/or improve renal function, but no single therapy has been proved to reduce mortality in acute cardiorenal syndrome.

Efficacy and safety of ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure patients with renal insufficiency

Ultrafiltration (UF) is an alternative strategy to diuretic therapy for the treatment of patients with decompensated heart failure. The impact of UF in decompensated heart failure with renal insufficiency remains unclear. A literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of UF in decompensated heart failure patients with renal insufficiency.Seven RCTs with 569 participants were eligible for analysis. There was significantly more 48 hour weight loss (WMD 1.59, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.86; P = 0.01; I2 = 68%) and 48 hour fluid removal (WMD 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.82; P < 0.0001; I2 = 43%) in the UF group compared to the control group. Serum creatinine (WMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.33; P = 0.61; I2 = 77%) and serum creatinine changes (WMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.26; P = 0.61; I2 = 77%) were similar between the UF and control groups. All-cause mortality (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.55; P = 0.83; I2 = 0.0%) and all-cause rehospitalization (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.92; P = 0.94; I2 = 52%) were also similar between the UF and control groups. Adverse events such as infection, anemia, hemorrhage, worsening heart failure, and other cardiac disorders did not differ significantly between the UF and control groups.UF is an effective and safe therapeutic strategy and produces greater weight loss and fluid removal without affecting renal function, mortality, or rehospitalization in patients with decompensated heart failure complicated by renal insufficiency.

Meta-Analysis of Ultrafiltration versus Diuretics Treatment Option for Overload Volume Reduction in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

INTRODUCTION

Although diuretics are mainly used for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), inadequate responses and complications have led to the use of extracorporeal ultrafiltration (UF) as an alternative strategy for reducing volume overloads in patients with ADHF.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to perform meta-analysis of the results obtained from studies on extracorporeal venous ultrafiltration and compare them with those of standard diuretic treatment for overload volume reduction in acute decompensated heart failure.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched using a pre‑specified criterion. Pooled estimates of outcomes after 48 h (weight change, serum creatinine level, and all-cause mortality) were computed using random effect models. Pooled weighted mean differences were calculated for weight loss and change in creatinine level, whereas a pooled risk ratio was used for the analysis of binary all-cause mortality outcome.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies, involving 613 patients, met the eligibility criteria. The mean weight loss in patients who underwent UF therapy was 1.78 kg [95% Confidence Interval (CI): -2.65 to -0.91 kg; p < 0.001) more than those who received standard diuretic therapy. The post-intervention creatinine level, however, was not significantly different (mean change = -0.25 mg/dL; 95% CI: -0.56 to 0.06 mg/dL; p = 0.112). The risk of all-cause mortality persisted in patients treated with UF compared with patients treated with standard diuretics (Pooled RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.64-1.56; p = 0.993).

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard diuretic therapy, UF treatment for overload volume reduction in individuals suffering from ADHF, resulted in significant reduction of body weight within 48 h. However, no significant decrease of serum creatinine level or reduction of all-cause mortality was observed.