A randomized, controlled trial of the renal effects of ultrafiltration as compared to furosemide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure

The Art of Ultrafiltration, from Pump to Peritoneum

BACKGROUND

Heart failure remains a significant public health burden given its prevalence, morbidity, mortality as well its untoward financial consequences.

SUMMARY

The assessment of congestion and its treatment are integral in heart failure pathophysiology and outcomes. Renal venous congestion and its suboptimal response to diuretic-based and novel pharmacological therapeutic regimens have thus positioned ultrafiltration as a promising therapeutic option for patients with acute decompensated heart failure. As a corollary, peritoneal dialysis has had success establishing itself as a relevant therapeutic option for chronic cardiorenal syndrome in patients with heart failure.

KEY MESSAGES

Herein, we will discuss the pathophysiologic basis of ultrafiltration and peritoneal dialysis in heart failure with a review of the relevant clinical trials on safety and efficacy profiles in these patient populations.

Efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: a meta-analysis

Objective

The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMbase databases from inception to April 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration and conventional diuretics in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Two investigators independently screened all eligible studies and extracted relevant data. The primary outcomes of interest were changes in body weight and creatinine levels, as well as the rate of readmission and mortality within 30 days. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

This meta-analysis included eight studies and found that early ultrafiltration was effective in reducing body weight in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (RR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.54-2.35, P = 0.002), but it also increased serum creatinine (RR = 0.1, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17, P = 0.003). However, it did not reduce the 30-day rehospitalization rate or mortality rate (30-day rehospitalization rate: RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.62-1.14, P = 0.28; Mortality: RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.57-1.44, P = 0.67).

Conclusion

Although early ultrafiltration is more effective in reducing body weight in patients with acute decompensated heart failure, it is associated with an increase in serum creatinine levels and does not reduce the rate of readmission or mortality within 30 days.

Systematic Review Registration

identifier: CRD42023416152.

Diuretics and Ultrafiltration in Heart Failure

Fluid overload is a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality, especially in patients with heart disease. The treatment options are limited to diuretics and mechanical fluid removal using ultrafiltration or renal replacement therapy. This paper provides an overview of the challenges of managing fluid overload, outlines the risks and benefits of different pharmacological options and extracorporeal techniques, and provides guidance for clinical practice.

Ultrafiltration for acute heart failure

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies such as loop diuretics are the cornerstone treatment for acute heart failure (AHF), but resistance and poor response can occur. Ultrafiltration (UF) is an alternative therapy to reduce congestion, however its benefits, efficacy and safety are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of UF compared to diuretic therapy on clinical outcomes such as mortality and rehospitalisation rates.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook a systematic search in June 2021 of the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science CPCI-S and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the WHO ICTRP platform in October 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared UF to diuretics in adults with AHF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for any further information, and language interpreters to translate texts. We assessed risk of bias in included studies using Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials involving 1190 people. We included people who had clinical signs of acute hypervolaemia. We excluded critically unwell people such as those with ischaemia or haemodynamic instability. Mean age ranged from 57.5 to 75 years, and the setting was a mix of single and multi-centre. Two trials researched UF as a complimentary therapy to diuretics, while the remaining trials withheld diuretic use during UF. There was high risk of bias in some studies, particularly with deviations from the intended protocols from high cross-overs as well as missing outcome data for long-term follow-up.  We are uncertain about the effect of UF on all-cause mortality at 30 days or less (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 2.85; 3 studies, 286 participants; very low-certainty evidence). UF may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; 9 studies, 987 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may reduce all-cause rehospitalisation at 30 days or less (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.09; 3 studies, 337 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may slightly reduce all-cause rehospitalisation at longest available follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; 6 studies, 612 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may reduce heart failure-related rehospitalisation at 30 days or less (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.04; 2 studies, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF probably reduces heart failure-related rehospitalisation at longest available follow-up, with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 10 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; 4 studies, 636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  No studies measured need for mechanical ventilation.  UF may have little or no effect on serum creatinine change at 30 days since discharge (mean difference (MD) 14%, 95% CI -12% to 40%; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may increase the risk of new initiation of renal replacement therapy at longest available follow-up (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.75; 4 studies, 332 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There is an uncertain effect of UF on the risk of complications from central line insertion in hospital (RR 4.16, 95% CI 1.30 to 13.30; 6 studies, 779 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review summarises the latest evidence on UF in AHF. Moderate-certainty evidence shows UF probably reduces heart failure-related rehospitalisation in the long term, with an NNTB of 10. UF may reduce all-cause rehospitalisation at 30 days or less and at longest available follow-up. The effect of UF on all-cause mortality at 30 days or less is unclear, and it may have little effect on all-cause mortality in the long-term.  While UF may have little or no effect on serum creatinine change at 30 days, it may increase the risk of new initiation of renal replacement therapy in the long term. The effect on complications from central line insertion is unclear.  There is insufficient evidence to determine the true impact of UF on AHF. Future research should evaluate UF as an adjunct therapy, focusing on outcomes such as heart failure-related rehospitalisation, cardiac mortality and renal outcomes at medium- to long-term follow-up.

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.

Acute cardiorenal syndrome in acute heart failure: focus on renal replacement therapy

Almost half of hospitalised patients with acute heart failure develop acute cardiorenal syndrome. Treatment consists of optimisation of fluid status and haemodynamics, targeted therapy for the underlying cardiac disease, optimisation of heart failure treatment and preventive measures such as avoidance of nephrotoxic agents. Renal replacement therapy may be temporarily needed to support kidney function, mostly in case of diuretic resistant fluid overload or severe metabolic derangement. The best timing to initiate renal replacement therapy and the best modality in acute heart failure are still under debate. Several modalities are available such as intermittent and continuous renal replacement therapy as well as hybrid techniques, based on two main principles: haemofiltration and haemodialysis. Although continuous techniques have been associated with less haemodynamic instability and a greater chance of renal recovery, cohort data are conflicting and randomised controlled trials have not shown a difference in recovery or mortality. In the presence of diuretic resistance, isolated ultrafiltration with individualisation of ultrafiltration rates is a valid option for decongestion in acute heart failure patients. Practical tools to optimise the use of renal replacement therapy in acute heart failure-related acute cardiorenal syndrome were discussed.

Benefits of peritoneal ultrafiltration in HFpEF and HFrEF patients

Background

Peritoneal ultrafiltration (pUF) in refractory heart failure (HF) reduces the incidence of decompensation episodes, which is of particular significance as each episode incrementally adds to mortality. Nevertheless, there are insufficient data about which patient cohort benefits the most. The objective of this study was to compare pUF in HFrEF and HFpEF, focusing on functional status, hospitalizations, surrogate endpoints and mortality.

Methods

This study involves 143 patients, who could be classified as either HFpEF (n = 37, 25.9%) or HFrEF (n = 106, 74.1%) and who received pUF due to refractory HF.

Results

Baseline eGFR was similar in HFrEF (23.1 ± 10.6 mg/dl) and HFpEF (27.8 ± 13.2 mg/dl). Significant improvements in NYHA class were found in HFpEF (3.19 ± 0.61 to 2.72 ± 0.58, P <  0.001) and HFrEF (3.45 ± 0.52 to 2.71 ± 0.72, P <  0.001). CRP decreased in HFrEF (19.4 ± 17.6 mg/l to 13.7 ± 21.4 mg/l, P = 0.018) and HFpEF (33.7 ± 52.6 mg/l to 17.1 ± 26.3 mg/l, P = 0.004). Body weight was significantly reduced in HFrEF (81.1 ± 14.6 kg to 77.2 ± 15.6 kg, P = 0.003) and HFpEF (86.9 ± 15.8 kg to 83.1 ± 15.9 kg, P = 0.005). LVEF improved only in HFrEF (25.9 ± 6.82% to 30.4 ± 12.2%, P = 0.046). BCR decreased significantly in HFrEF and HFpEF (55.7 ± 21.9 to 34.3 ± 17.9 P > 0.001 and 50.5 ± 68.9 to 37.6 ± 21.9, P = 0.006). Number of hospitalization episodes as well as number of hospitalization days decreased significantly only in HFpEF (total number 2.88 ± 1.62 to 1.25 ± 1.45, P <  0.001, days 40.4 ± 31.7 to 18.3 ± 22.5 days, P = 0.005).

Conclusions

pUF offers various benefits in HFpEF and HFrEF, but there are also substantial differences. In particular, hospitalization rates were found to be significantly reduced in HFpEF patients, indicating a greater medical and economical advantage. However, LVEF was only found to be improved in HFrEF patients. While pUF can now be regarded as an option to supplement classical HF therapy, further studies are desirable to obtain specifications about pUF in HFpEF, HFmEF and HFrEF patients.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Peritoneal dialysis as therapeutic option in heart failure patients

Aims

Each episode of acute decompensated heart failure (HF) incrementally adds to mortality. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers an alternative therapeutic option in refractory HF and reduces the incidence of decompensation episodes. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of PD, in terms of functional status, surrogate endpoints, rate of hospitalizations, and mortality.

Methods and results

This study is based on the registry of the German Society of Nephrology, involving 159 patients receiving PD treatment due to refractory HF between January 2010 and December 2014. Body weight was reduced by PD (82.2 ± 14.9 to 78.4 ± 14.8 kg, P < 0.001), and significant improvements in New York Heart Association functional class (3.38 ± 0.55 to 2.85 ± 0.49, P < 0.001) were found already after 3 months. Left ventricular ejection fraction did not change (31.5 ± 13.8 to 34.0 ± 15.7%, P = 0.175). C‐reactive protein improved with PD treatment (33.7 ± 52.6 to 17.1 ± 26.3 mg/L, P = 0.004). Blood urea nitrogen/creatinine ratio decreased significantly (148.7 ± 68.3 to 106.7 ± 44.8 mg/dL, P < 0.001). Hospitalization rates decreased significantly (total number 2.86 ± 1.88 to 1.90 ± 1.78, P = 0.001, and 39.2 ± 30.7 to 27.1 ± 25.2 days, P = 0.004). One year mortality was 39.6% in end‐stage HF patients treated with PD.

Conclusions

Peritoneal dialysis offers an additional therapeutic option in end‐stage HF and is associated with improved New York Heart Association classification and reduced hospitalization. Although PD treatment was associated with various benefits, further studies are necessary to identify which patients benefit the most from PD.

Cardiorenal Syndrome Type 1: Definition, Etiopathogenesis, Diagnostics and Treatment

Cardiorenal Syndrome Type 1 (CRS-1) is defined as an acute worsening of heart function leading to acute kidney injury and/or dysfunction. It is an important cause of hospitalization which affects the diagnosis as well as the prognosis and treatment of patients. The purpose of this paper is to analyze causes that lead to the development of cardiorenal syndrome type 1 and its clinical consequences, as well as to emphasize the clinical importance of its early detection. The clinical studies and professional papers dealing with etiopathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of cardiorenal syndrome type 1, have been analyzed. The most important role in the occurrence of cardio renal syndrome type 1 is played by hemodynamic mechanisms, activation of neurohumoral systems, inflammation and imbalance between the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and nitric oxide (NO). Diagnosis of cardiorenal syndrome type 1 involves biomarkers of acute renal injury among which the most important are: neutrophil gelatinaseassociated lipocalin (NGAL), cystatin C, kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1), liver-type fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP), IL-18 and the values of nitrogen compounds in serum. In addition to a pharmacological therapy, various modalities of extracorporeal ultrafiltration are applied in treatment of CRS-1, particularly if there is resistance to the use of diuretic therapy. As opposed to the experimental models, in clinical practice acute renal injury is often diagnosed late so that the measures taken do not give the expected results and the protective role shown in experimental conditions do not give the same results. For all these reasons, it is necessary to analyze the pathophysiology of renal impairment in cardiorenal syndrome as well as detect early indicators of kidney injury that could have clinical benefit and positive impact on reducing the cost of treatment.

Defining the role of ultrafiltration therapy in acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ultrafiltration (UF) has emerged as an alternative therapy for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) due to its physiological benefits such as improvement in neurohormonal activation. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and the impact on outcomes for UF therapy as compared to conventional medical treatment. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to December 2015 for randomized controlled trials that examined UF therapy in ADHF and used diuretic-based regimens as the control group. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, we explored the impact on weight change, fluid removal, renal function, rehospitalization rate, and mortality. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) was calculated for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data. Seven studies with a total of 771 patients met our selection criteria. UF therapy led to greater weight loss (WMD 1.35, 95 % CI 0.49-2.21, p < 0.01) and fluid removal (WMD 1.81, 95 % CI 1.01-2.62, p = <0.01) while the impact of UF on renal function was comparable with medical treatment (WMD 0.06, 95 % CI -0.11 to 0.22, p = 0.48), UF decreased heart failure rehospitalization rate (OR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.37-0.98, p = 0.04) but did not change mortality (OR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.68-1.57, p = 0.89). Compared with diuretic-based medical treatment, UF therapy is more efficient in decongestion of patients with ADHF. It does not have a deleterious impact on renal function and can improve heart failure-related rehospitalization rate, albeit without conferring a survival benefit.

Extracorporeal Ultrafiltration for Fluid Overload in Heart Failure: Current Status and Prospects for Further Research

More than 1 million heart failure hospitalizations occur annually, and congestion is the predominant cause. Rehospitalizations for recurrent congestion portend poor outcomes independently of age and renal function. Persistent congestion trumps serum creatinine increases in predicting adverse heart failure outcomes. No decongestive pharmacological therapy has reduced these harmful consequences. Simplified ultrafiltration devices permit fluid removal in lower-acuity hospital settings, but with conflicting results regarding safety and efficacy. Ultrafiltration performed at fixed rates after onset of therapy-induced increased serum creatinine was not superior to standard care and resulted in more complications. In contrast, compared with diuretic agents, some data suggest that adjustment of ultrafiltration rates to patients’ vital signs and renal function may be associated with more effective decongestion and fewer heart failure events. Essential aspects of ultrafiltration remain poorly defined. Further research is urgently needed, given the burden of congestion and data suggesting sustained benefits of early and adjustable ultrafiltration.

Intracardiac Pressures Measured Using an Implantable Hemodynamic Monitor: Relationship to Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this analysis was to examine whether implantable hemodynamic monitor-derived baseline estimated pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (ePAD) and change from baseline ePAD were independent predictors of all-cause mortality in patients with chronic heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective analysis used data from 3 studies (n=790 patients; 216 deaths). Baseline ePAD was related to mortality using a multivariable model including baseline and demographic data. Changes in ePAD defined as change from baseline to 6 months and from baseline to 14 days before death or exit from study were related to subsequent mortality, and analysis was adjusted for baseline ePAD. Area under the pressure versus time curve during 180 days before death or exit from study was related to mortality. Baseline ePAD, independent of other covariates, was a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval=1.05-1.09; P<0.0001). Change in ePAD was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio=1.07; 95% confidence interval=1.05-1.100; P=0.0008). Increased ePAD of 3, 4, or 5 mm Hg from baseline to 6 months was associated with increased mortality risk of 23.8%, 32.9%, or 42.8%. Change in ePAD from baseline to 14 days before death or exit from study was higher in patients who died (3.0±8 versus 1.7±10 mm Hg; P=0.003). Area under the pressure versus time curve in the final 180 days before death or exit from study was higher in patients who died versus those alive at end of study (185±668 versus 17±482 mm Hg.days; P=0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Implantable hemodynamic monitor-derived baseline ePAD and change from baseline ePAD were independent predictors of mortality in chronic heart failure patients.

Ultrafiltration versus intravenous loop diuretics in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

Background Intravenous loop diuretics are the first-line therapy for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) but many patients are discharged with unresolved congestion resulting in higher re-hospitalization and mortality rates. Ultrafiltration (UF) is a promising intervention for ADHF. However, studies comparing UF to diuretics have been inconsistent in their clinical outcomes. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed. Trials were included if they met the following criteria: (1) randomization with a control group, (2) comparison of UF with a loop diuretic, and (3) a diagnosis of ADHF. Results When compared to diuretics, UF was associated with a reduced risk of clinical worsening (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.86, P-value 0.007), increased likelihood for clinical decongestion (OR 2.32, 95% CI: 1.09-4.91, P-value 0.03) with greater weight (0.97 Kg, 95% CI: 0.52-1.42, P-value <0.0001) and volume reduction (1.11 L, 95% CI: 0.68-1.54, P-value <0.0001). The overall risk of re-hospitalization (OR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.62-1.38, P-value 0.70), return to emergency department (OR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.44-1.08, P-value 0.10) and mortality (OR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.60-1.62, P-value 0.97) were not significantly improved by UF treatment. Conclusions UF is associated with significant improvements in clinical decongestion but not in rates of re-hospitalization or mortality.

Acute Kidney Injury in Pediatric Heart Failure

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is very common in pediatric medical and surgical cardiac patients. Not only is it an independent risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality in the short run, but repeated episodes of AKI lead to chronic kidney disease (CKD) especially in the most vulnerable hosts with multiple risk factors, such as heart transplant recipients. The cardiorenal syndrome, a term coined to emphasize the bidirectional nature of simultaneous or sequential cardiac-renal dysfunction both in acute and chronic settings, has been recently described in adults but scarcely reported in children. Despite the common occurrence and clinical and financial impact, AKI in pediatric heart failure outside of cardiac surgery populations remains poorly studied and there are no large-scale pediatric specific preventive or therapeutic studies to date. This article will review pediatric aspects of the cardiorenal syndrome in terms of pathophysiology, clinical impact and treatment options.

[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.

Ultrafiltration Therapy for Heart Failure: Balancing Likely Benefits against Possible Risks

Heart failure remains a major public health concern because of its high prevalence, morbidity, mortality, and financial burden. The poor clinical outcomes associated with acute decompensated heart failure, suboptimal efficacy and safety profile of conventional treatment regimens, and unsatisfactory experiences with the newer classes of pharmacologic therapy underlie the interest in the use of extracorporeal isolated ultrafiltration in this setting. In this article, selected mechanistic aspects of ultrafiltration therapy are briefly reviewed followed by a critical overview of the largest trials in this field. I will discuss the clinical relevance of renal dysfunction and decongestion as two commonly used end points of safety and efficacy in the ultrafiltration trials, with emphasis on the emerging pertinent notions that could challenge our conventional thinking. Finally, a number of practical recommendations (e.g., customization of ultrafiltration rates) are provided for ultrafiltration therapy in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure. Because of a paucity of evidence, universally accepted consensus guidelines cannot yet be generated. As such, when considering ultrafiltration therapy for acute decompensated heart failure, the likely benefits should be carefully balanced against the potential risks for an individual patient. A conceivable implication of the ultrafiltration trials is that collaborative heart failure programs benefiting from nephrology expertise and resources could improve the outcomes and reduce the cost.

Extracorporeal ultrafiltration therapy for acute decompensated heart failure

Congestion is the most common reason for hospitalization of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and adversely impacts their outcomes. Extracorporeal ultrafiltration (UF) therapy has re-emerged as an effective strategy for decongestion in this setting. This article is intended to discuss key concepts in UF and its technique, provide a brief historical view of UF application for decongestion in ADHF, review the hemodynamic and neurohormonal effects of UF and their positive effects on the pathophysiology of ADHF, discuss the findings of the landmark trials in this field, and explain key findings of these studies as well as the apparent discrepancies in their findings. In a separate section we discuss the intricacies of renal dysfunction in ADHF as it plays a very important role in understanding the current evidence and designing futures clinical trials of UF in ADHF. In the end, the authors provide their perspective on the future role of UF in management of patients with ADHF and congestion.

Volume Overload in Heart Failure: An Evidence-Based Review of Strategies for Treatment and Prevention

Acute decompensated heart failure is the leading cause of hospital admission in the United States, with a high risk of readmission within 30 days. Most acute decompensated heart failure admissions are driven by congestive signs and symptoms resulting from fluid and sodium overload. We reviewed the evidence base addressing the management and prevention of fluid overload in heart failure, focusing on recent clinical trials. All the references in this review were obtained through PubMed and had at least 1 of the following key words: heart failure and volume overload, congestion, loop diuretics, thiazide diuretics, aldosterone antagonists, dopamine, cardiorenal syndrome, nesiritide, vasopressin antagonists, ultrafiltration, sodium restriction, fluid restriction, telemonitoring, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. We also reviewed relevant references cited in the obtained articles, especially articles addressing methods of treating or preventing volume overload in patients with heart failure.

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.

Cardiorenal syndrome type 2: from diagnosis to optimal management

The deterioration of renal function, which is linked to chronic heart failure by a chronological and causal relationship (ie, the so-called cardiorenal syndrome [CRS] type 2), has recently become a matter of growing debate. This debate has concerned the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of the therapies that have been implemented thus far for this syndrome (for example, the intravenous [IV] loop diuretics, such as repeated IV boluses or slow IV infusions, as well as mechanical fluid removal, particularly by means of isolated ultrafiltration [IUF]). Further controversies have also emerged concerning the optimal dosage and timing of some evidence-based drugs, such as angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors. The present review summarizes the currently used diagnostic tools for detecting renal damage in CRS type 2. Subsequently, the meaning of worsening renal function is outlined, as well as the sometimes inconsistent therapeutic schemes that have been implemented in order to prevent or counteract worsening renal function. The need to elaborate upon more detailed and comprehensive scientific recommendations for targeted prevention and/or therapy of CRS type 2 is also underlined. The measures usually adopted (such as the more accurate modulation of loop diuretic dose, combined with the exploitation of other diuretics that are able to achieve a sequential blockade of the nephron, as well as the use of IV administration for loop diuretics) are briefly presented. The concept of diuretic resistance is illustrated, along with the paramount operational principles of IUF in diuretic-resistant patients. Some controversies regarding the comparison of IUF with stepped diuretic therapy in patients with CRS type 2 are also addressed.

Extracorporeal ultrafiltration for heart failure: focus on organ cross talk and clinical trials

Despite major advances in pharmacological therapy and cardiac devices, heart failure patients continue to be frequently (re-)hospitalized with signs and symptoms of fluid overload. Diuretics improve the symptoms of fluid overload, but their effectiveness is reduced by a number of factors including excess salt intake, underlying chronic kidney disease, renal adaptation to their actions and neurohormonal activation. Ultrafiltration (UF) is a mechanical method of fluid removal with several potential advantages over diuretic-based conventional therapies: several recent studies have demonstrated favorable clinical response to UF therapy. Such studies have shown that removal of large amounts of isotonic fluid, in addition to relieving symptoms of congestion, can improve exercise capacity, reduce cardiac filling pressures, restore diuretic responsiveness, and portend a favorable effect on cardio-pulmonary, cardiorenal interactions, and neurohormonal hyperactivation. However, despite these proposed benefits, so far, no clinical study has yet been carried out to explore the impact of UF therapy on hard clinical endpoints such as long-term mortality. In this article, we review a number of mechanistic aspects of UF therapy, with particular emphasis on cardio-pulmonary and cardiorenal interactions, and revisit the results of more recent clinical trials in order to highlight the characteristics that can help identify patients who are more likely to benefit from this therapeutic modality.

A pilot study of target weight guided treatment in acute heart failure using ultrafiltration or usual care: effect on sodium removal

Background and Objectives

In the Ultrafiltration versus Intravenous Diuretics for Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure trial, ultrafiltration (UF) removed volume more effectively than usual care (UC). Hypothetically, UF may be superior to UC due to increased sodium (Na) removal and less neurohormonal activation. We compared UF and UC in a randomized pilot trial of target weight guided therapy for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).

Subjects and Methods

Sixteen patients with ADHF were enrolled and target weights established prospectively, prior to randomization to UC or UF. UF patients did not receive diuretics and UC patients were all treated with a continuous furosemide drip. All urine and ultrafiltrate were collected and Na concentrations measured.

Results

Similar volumes were removed in UC and UF groups (110105 mL and 107415 mL, respectively) and the UF group also produced 45325 mL of urine. Na concentration was 138±6 meq/L in the ultrafiltrate, 85±73 meq/L in the UC group's urine, and 26±23 meq/L in the UF group's urine. Given the relevant associated volumes, total meq of the Na removed was similar (1168 in UC vs. 1216 in UF). The UF group produced isotonic ultrafiltrate and a higher volume of dilute urine than anticipated.

Conclusion

In a randomized pilot study of target weight guided therapy with UC or UF for ADHF, there were no differences in total volumes or Na removed, and lengths of hospital stays were similar. Isotonic fluid loss by UF was accompanied by the production of very dilute urine.

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

BACKGROUND

Patients with decompensated heart failure frequently present with volume overload, which is conventionally treated with diuretics. These drugs have been associated with several adverse effects, including increased mortality, leading some clinicians to propose ultrafiltration as a safe alternative to remove sodium and water.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of ultrafiltration and conventional intravenous diuretic therapy for patients with acute heart failure and volume overload.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the following databases through November 2012: Cochrane Library (1993-), PubMed (1988-), OVID (1984-), EBSCO (1984-), CBM (1978-), VIP (1989-), and CNKI (1979-). In addition, we manually searched relevant references and review articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of ultrafiltration and intravenous diuretics in patients diagnosed with hypervolemic acute heart failure were included. Five trials were found to satisfy all the inclusion criteria.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility, assessed methodological quality and extracted the data. We analyzed the data and pooled them, when appropriate, using Revman 5.0. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook 5.0 for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, taking into account sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting.

RESULTS

Data from the initial phase of five trials involving 477 participants were included. Meta-analysis of the pooled data showed that ultrafiltration was significantly better than diuretic drugs based on 48-h weight loss (Z = 3.72; P < 0.001, weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.25 kg, 95 % CI 0.59-1.91) and based on 48-h fluid removal (Z = 4.23; P < 0.001, WMD = 1.06 L, 95 % CI 0.57-1.56). Adverse events did not differ significantly between the ultrafiltration and intravenous diuretic treatment groups.

LIMITATIONS

There are several limitations to our review, including publication bias and selection bias. Our review included only a few studies involving relatively few participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that early ultrafiltration is safe and effective for patients with hypervolemic acute heart failure. It allows greater fluid removal and weight loss by 48 h than do intravenous diuretics, with no significant increase in adverse effects.

Role of diuretics and ultrafiltration in congestive heart failure

Volume overload in heart failure (HF) results from neurohumoral activation causing renal sodium and water retention secondary to arterial underfilling. Volume overload not only causes signs and symptoms of congestion, but can impact myocardial remodeling and HF progression. Thus, treating congestion is a cornerstone of HF management. Loop diuretics are the most commonly used drugs in this setting. However, up to 30% of the patients with decompensated HF present with loop-diuretic resistance. A universally accepted definition of loop diuretic resistance, however, is lacking. Several approaches to treat diuretic-resistant HF are available, including addition of distal acting thiazide diuretics, natriuretic doses of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), or vasoactive drugs. Slow continuous veno-venous ultrafiltration is another option. Ultrafiltration, if it is started early in the course of HF decompensation, may result in prominent decongestion and a reduction in re-hospitalization. On the other hand, ultrafiltration in HF patients with worsening renal function and volume overload after aggressive treatment with loop diuretics, failed to show benefit compared to a stepwise pharmacological approach, including diuretics and vasoactive drugs. Early detection of congested HF patients for ultrafiltration treatment might improve decongestion and reduce readmission. However, the best patient characteristics and best timing of ultrafiltration requires further evaluation in randomized controlled studies.

Cardiorenal syndrome: ultrafiltration therapy for heart failure--trials and tribulations

Heart failure remains the leading cause of hospitalization in older patients and is considered a growing public health problem with a significant financial burden on the health care system. The suboptimal efficacy and safety profile of diuretic-based therapeutic regimens coupled with unsatisfactory results of the studies on novel pharmacologic agents have positioned ultrafiltration on the forefront as an appealing therapeutic option for patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). In recent years, substantial interest in the use of ultrafiltration has been generated due to the advent of dedicated portable devices and promising results of trials focusing both on mechanistic and clinical aspects of this therapeutic modality. This article briefly reviews the proposed benefits of ultrafiltration therapy in the setting of ADHF and summarizes the major findings of the currently available studies in this field. The results of more recent trials on cardiorenal syndrome that present a counterpoint to previous observations and highlight certain limitations of ultrafiltration therapy are then discussed, followed by identification of major challenges and unanswered questions that could potentially hinder its more widespread use. Future studies are warranted to shed light on less well characterized aspects of ultrafiltration therapy and to further define its role in ADHF and cardiorenal syndrome.

Treatment of congestion in heart failure with diuretics and extracorporeal therapies: effects on symptoms, renal function, and prognosis

In the United States and Europe, approximately 90% of heart failure hospitalizations are due to symptoms and signs of sodium and fluid excess. Congestion is associated with heart failure progression. Venous congestion, rather than a reduced cardiac output, may be the primary hemodynamic factor driving worsening renal function in patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. According to data from large national registries, approximately 40% of hospitalized heart failure patients are discharged with unresolved congestion, which may contribute to unacceptably high re-hospitalization rates. Diuretics reduce the symptoms and signs of fluid overload, but their effectiveness can be reduced by excess salt intake, underlying chronic kidney disease, renal adaptation to their action, and neurohormonal activation. In addition, the production of hypotonic urine limits the ability of loop diuretics to reduce total body sodium. Ultrafiltration is the mechanical removal of fluid from the vasculature. Hydrostatic pressure is applied to blood across a semipermeable membrane to separate isotonic plasma water from blood. Because solutes in blood freely cross the semipermeable membrane, fluid can be removed without causing significant changes in the serum concentration of electrolytes and other solutes. Relatively small, mostly single-center clinical studies of ultrafiltration have shown that removal of isotonic fluid may relieve symptoms of congestion and restore diuretic responsiveness in patients with diuretic resistance. These studies have also shown a favorable effect on neurohormonal activation. When compared with intravenous diuretics, ultrafiltration similarly changed dyspnea scores but reduced re-hospitalizations (28 of 87 patients (32%) versus 16 of 89 patients (18%), P < 0.037) in a randomized controlled trial of patients with decompensated heart failure. Future larger controlled clinical trials should evaluate further the effect of ultrafiltration on patients' outcomes, including survival.

Reduction in body weight but worsening renal function with late ultrafiltration for treatment of acute decompensated heart failure

OBJECTIVES

The safety, effectiveness and indications for ultrafiltration (UF) are not well established. We hypothesized that UF would not worsen renal function in patients with heart failure (HF) who were not responding to medical therapy.

METHODS

Data was collected for patients who underwent UF between 2006 and 2010 (n = 72, median age 61 years, 54% males, 61% Caucasian, 54% left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40%).

RESULTS

Baseline GFR was 38 ml/min/1.73 m2. All patients were initially treated with loop diuretics and 58% required a thiazide-like diuretic or vasoactive agent. UF resulted in total fluid removal of 11.3 liters and weight loss was 9.7 kg. The median decrease in eGFR during UF was 4.5 ml/min/m2 (IQR--13, 0; p < 0.01) and 43% of patients experienced a ≥ 20% decrease in eGFR. Ten percent of patients required dialysis and 13% died, received a ventricular assist device/cardiac transplant or were discharged to hospice.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of HF patients who did not respond to medical therapy, UF was associated not only with a significant reduction of body weight and fluid removal, but also acute worsening of renal function. Further research to identify the appropriate population for UF, long-term outcomes and the intensity of treatment is required if UF is to gain wide acceptance for HF management.

Cardiorenal syndrome in acute decompensated heart failure

Cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) commonly occurs during treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and is associated with poor clinical outcome. The pathophysiology of CRS entails a complex interaction between hemodynamic alterations, including reduced renal perfusion, increased venous pressure and activation of multiple neurohormonal systems. Attempts to effectively treat congestion while preserving renal function in ADHF are often met with limited clinical success and often require therapeutic decisions that reflect a compromise between potential benefits and harm. At present, there is no evidence-based intervention specifically targeted at renal function. Recent Phase III randomized trials, using novel agents in patients with ADHF, have largely failed to demonstrate any benefits of therapy on renal and clinical outcomes. Early diagnosis of CRS using novel markers of tubular injury may allow for timely interventions and attenuate progression. Future studies are needed to further elucidate the pathophysiology of this complex syndrome and identify new potential targets for effective evidence-based treatments.

Emerging therapies for heart failure: renal mechanisms and effects

Improved understanding of the pathophysiology of salt and water homeostasis has provided a foundation for explaining the renal mechanisms of emerging therapies for heart failure, as well as why renal function might potentially be improved or harmed. These aspects are reviewed in this article for a number of newer therapies including adenosine, endothelin, and vasopressin receptor antagonists, as well as extracorporeal ultrafiltration. An appreciation of the complexity and sometimes opposing pathways of these approaches may explain their limited efficacy in early trials, in which there has not been a substantial improvement in patient or renal outcomes. In that there is often a balance between beneficial and maladaptive receptor actions and neurohumoral responses, this physiologic approach also provides insight into the rationale for combining therapies. Multi-agent strategies may thus maximize their effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects and tolerance. In this paper, the theoretical impact of the emerging agents based on their mechanism of action and pathophysiology of the disease is initially addressed. Then, the available clinical evidence for each class of drugs is reviewed with special emphasis on their effect on kidney-related parameters. Finally, a general overview of the complexity of the interpretation of trials is offered along with a number of potential explanations for the observed results.

Extracorporeal versus peritoneal ultrafiltration in diuretic-resistant congestive heart failure--a review

Diuretic-resistant congestive heart failure in the form of type 2 cardiorenal syndrome is a problem of growing significance in everyday clinical practice because of high morbidity and mortality. There has been scant progress in the treatment of overhydration, the main cause of symptoms in this group of patients. The aim of our review is to present recent advances in the ultrafiltration therapy of congestive heart failure, with special attention to the new dedicated device for extracorporeal isolated ultrafiltration, as well as modifications of peritoneal dialysis in the form of peritoneal ultrafiltration with icodextrin solution and incremental peritoneal dialysis. Technical and clinical features, costs and potential risks of available devices for isolated ultrafiltration are presented. This method should be reserved for patients with true diuretic resistance as part of a more complex strategy aiming at the adequate control of fluid retention. Peritoneal ultrafiltration is presented as a viable alternative to extracorporeal ultrafiltration because of medical and psychosocial benefits of home-based therapy, lower costs and more effective daily ultrafiltration. In conclusion, large, properly randomized and controlled clinical trials with long-term follow-up will be essential in assessing the logistics and cost-effectiveness of both methods. Most importantly, however, they should be able to evaluate the impact of both methods on preservation of renal function and delaying the progression of heart failure by interrupting the vicious circle of cardiorenal syndrome. Our review is supplemented with the case report of the use of peritoneal ultrafiltration with a single 12-hour nighttime icodextrin exchange as a life-saving procedure in a patient with congestive heart failure resistant to pharmacological treatment.<br />

Decongestive treatment of acute decompensated heart failure: cardiorenal implications of ultrafiltration and diuretics

In patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), treatment aimed at adequate decongestion of the volume overloaded state is essential. Despite diuretic therapy, many patients remain volume overloaded and symptomatic. In addition, adverse effects related to diuretic treatment are common, including worsening kidney function and electrolyte disturbances. The development of decreased kidney function during treatment affects the response to diuretic therapy and is associated with important clinical outcomes, including mortality. The occurrence of diuretic resistance and the morbidity and mortality associated with diuretic therapy has stimulated interest to develop effective and safe treatment strategies that maximize decongestion and minimize decreased kidney function. During the last few decades, extracorporeal ultrafiltration has been used to remove fluid from diuretic-refractory hypervolemic patients. Recent clinical studies using user-friendly machines have suggested that ultrafiltration may be highly effective for decongesting patients with ADHF. Many questions remain regarding the comparative impact of diuretics and ultrafiltration on important clinical outcomes and adverse effects, including decreased kidney function. This article serves as a summary of key clinical studies addressing these points. The overall goal is to assist practicing clinicians who are contemplating the use of ultrafiltration for a patient with ADHF.

Acute heart failure: lessons learned so far

Acute heart failure (AHF) affects nearly every Canadian with heart failure (HF) at least once. Despite several attempts, no medical therapies have been shown to improve the natural history of AHF. In addition, the place of diagnosis of AHF is increasingly made in the outpatient setting. In this view, AHF is a moving target, and from recent registry data and from clinical trials, 5 critical lessons regarding the syndrome of AHF emerge: (1) The period of clinical instability preceding AHF may be much longer than previously thought. (2) Refinement of tools used to aid the early and accurate diagnosis of AHF will impact patient outcomes. (3) Standard supportive care of patients with AHF includes early use of diuretics with frequent reassessment in nearly all patients and supplemental vasodilators and oxygen therapy in selected cases. (4) Patients who survive presentation of AHF continue to suffer high rates of re-presentation, death, and rehospitalization following discharge from either hospital or emergency department. (5) Interventions shown to improve patient outcomes for AHF to date are related to process of care rather than new medications or devices. This report reviews the recent literature regarding the presentation, diagnosis, management, and prognosis of AHF. Areas of future research priority are indicated and guidelines for improving treatment are provided. AHF is an important clinical area that has not been as intensively studied as chronic HF; it presents both important needs and exciting opportunities for research and innovation.

Ultrafiltration in heart failure

Fluid overload is a key pathophysiologic mechanism underlying both the acute decompensation episodes of heart failure and the progression of the syndrome. Moreover, it represents the most important factor responsible for the high readmission rates observed in these patients and is often associated with renal function worsening, which by itself increases mortality risk. In this clinical context, ultrafiltration (UF) has been proposed as an alternative to diuretics to obtain a quicker relief of pulmonary/systemic congestion. This review illustrates technical issues, mechanisms, efficacy, safety, costs, and indications of UF in heart failure. The available evidence does not support the widespread use of UF as a substitute for diuretic therapy. Owing to its operative characteristics, UF cannot be expected to directly influence serum electrolyte levels, azotemia, and acid-base balance, or to remove high-molecular-weight substances (eg, cytokines) in clinically relevant amounts. Ultrafiltration should be used neither as a quicker way to achieve a sort of mechanical diuresis nor as a remedy for an inadequately prescribed and administered diuretic therapy. Instead, it should be reserved to selected patients with advanced heart failure and true diuretic resistance, as part of a more complex strategy aiming at an adequate control of fluid retention.

Ultrafiltration in the management of acute decompensated heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Admissions to hospital for acute decompensated heart failure continue to increase and represent a significant burden on both patients' and healthcare resources. The majority of these admissions are for the control of volume overload; however, standard treatment with intravenous diuretics is not always effective and can lead to increased renal morbidity. One alternative to standard therapy is mechanical fluid removal with ultrafiltration, this review will highlight the current evidence and efficacy regarding ultrafiltration use in acute heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple recent clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of ultrafiltration in the management of acute heart failure. Ultrafiltration may be more effective at removing fluid than standard diuretic therapy and has been associated with beneficial long-term results. However, it remains to be determined whether ultrafiltration is truly nephroprotective and when and how this therapy is best utilized.

SUMMARY

Ultrafiltration is an attractive alternative to standard diuretic therapy in the management of volume overload from acute heart failure. Further research is needed to confirm the cost-effectiveness and to determine long-term impacts on morbidity and mortality.

The cardiorenal syndrome: a review

Cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) is the umbrella term used to describe clinical conditions in which cardiac and renal dysfunctions coexist. Much has been written on this subject, but underlying pathophysiological mechanisms continue to be unravelled and implications for management continue to be debated. A classification system—incorporating five subtypes—has recently been proposed though it has yet to permeate into day-to-day clinical practice. CRS has garnered much attention from both the cardiological and nephrological communities since the condition is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Renal dysfunction is highly prevalent amongst patients with heart failure and has been shown to be as powerful and independent a marker of adverse prognosis as ejection fraction. Similarly, patients with renal failure are considerably more likely to suffer cardiovascular disease than matched subjects from the general population. This paper begins by reviewing the epidemiology and classification of CRS before going on to consider the different pathological mechanisms underlying cardiorenal dysfunction. We then focus on management strategies and conclude by discussing future directions in the diagnosis and management of patients suffering with CRS.

Efficacy and safety of continuous hemodiafiltration for acute decompensated heart failure

The mortality of heart failure patients with renal insufficiency is high, and these patients tend to develop diuretic resistance. Under these conditions, continuous hemodiafiltration (CHDF) is a possible alternative volume reduction therapy to diuretics. However, its efficacy and safety are not clear. Between April 2005 and March 2008, 248 patients with acute decompensated heart failure were admitted to the CCU of Kyoto City Hospital. Of those patients, 31 (20 volume overloaded heart failure, 11 cardiogenic shock) received CHDF therapy, and their weight loss, acute hemodynamic changes, and clinical outcome were assessed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CHDF therapy. CHDF was performed for 6.5 +/- 6.5 days. There was no significant change in acute hemodynamics after CHDF initiation. In the volume overloaded heart failure (VH) group, significant weight loss was observed at 24 hours and 48 hours after CHDF initiation (P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality of the VH group and cardiogenic shock (CS) group were 10.0% and 54.5%, respectively. CHDF for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a safe, effective, and reliable volume reduction therapy for volume overloaded heart failure. Further investigation is required to assess the effectiveness of CHDF for cardiogenic shock.

Pathogenesis and therapeutic implications of cardiorenal syndrome

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is now widely accepted as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality. Heart failure patients with CKD have a worse prognosis. The heart and kidneys act in tandem to regulate blood pressure, vascular tone, diuresis, natriuresis, intravascular volume homeostasis, peripheral tissue perfusion, and oxygenation. Cardiorenal syndrome is a pathophysiological condition in which combined cardiac and renal dysfunction amplifies the progression of failure of the individual organs, and it has an extremely poor prognosis. The identification of patients and the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying each subtype will help physicians to understand the clinical derangements and provide the rationale for management strategies. The evidence from clinical trials conducted on heart failure patients with significant kidney dysfunction is insufficient because most patients are recruited from populations with relatively well-preserved kidney function. In severe volume-loaded patients who are refractory to diuretics and also have kidney dysfunction, the management of cardiorenal dysfunction is challenging, and effective therapy is lacking. In the absence of definitive clinical trials, treatment decisions must be based on a combination of information regarding the individual patient information and an understanding of the individual treatment options.