Presión intraabdominal y empeoramiento de la función renal durante las descompensaciones de la insuficiencia cardiaca. Un informe preliminar del estudio PIA

The Association Between Intra-abdominal Pressure and Diuretic Response in Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

An efficient diuretic response is vital during cardiac decompensation in heart failure (HF) patients. The increase in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) could be one of the keys for understanding cardiorenal syndrome and guiding diuretic treatment during hospitalization. In this review, we analyze the relationship between IAP and diuretic response in HF patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increased IAP is associated with worsening renal function (WRF) in patients with advanced HF. Furthermore, the persistence of a rise in IAP after the first 72 h of intravenous diuretic treatment has been correlated with a worse diuretic response, a higher degree of congestion, and an impaired prognosis. The rise in IAP in HF patients has been associated with impaired renal function and a lower diuretic response. Nonetheless, more studies are needed to elucidate the actual role of IAP in congestive nephropathy and whether it may help guide diuretic therapy during acute decompensations.

Utility of plasma CA125 as a proxy of intra-abdominal pressure in patients with acute heart failure

AIMS

Increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is now considered a potential contributor to organ damage and disease progression in acute heart failure (AHF). In this work, we aimed to determine if antigen carbohydrate 125 (CA125) is associated with IAP and to identify a cutpoint of CA125 useful for ruling out intra-abdominal hypertension (defined as IAP ≥ 12 mmHg).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively evaluated a cohort of 53 patients admitted with AHF in which IAP was measured within the first 24-h of admission. The mean age was 80 ± 8 years, 31 (58.5%) were female, and 31 (58.5%) had left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The median plasma levels of NT-proBNP and CA125 were 3830 pg/mL (2417-8929) and 45.8 U/mL (29.8-114.0), respectively. The median of IAP was 15 mmHg (11-17), and 39 (73%) patients had an IAP ≥ 12 mmHg. The diagnostic performance of CA125 for identifying an IAP ≥ 12 mmHg was tested using the receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The cut-off for CA125 of 17.1 U/mL showed a sensitivity of 92%, a specificity of 50%, and an area under the ROC curve of 0.71. After multivariate adjustment, CA125 remained non-linearly and positively associated with higher IAP (P-value = 0.003), explaining almost 28% of the model's variability (R2: 27.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AHF and intra-abdominal hypertension had higher CA125 plasma levels. A baseline concentration of CA125 below 17.1 U/mL will increase the odds of identifying a subset of patients with normal IAP.

Variation in intraabdominal pressure in patients with acute heart failure according to left ventricular ejection fraction. Results of an intraabdominal pressure study

BACKGROUND

The increase in intraabdominal pressure (IAP) has been correlated with increased creatinine levels in patients with heart failure with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, IAP has not been examined in more stable patients or those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We conducted an observational, prospective descriptive study that measured the IAP of patients hospitalised for decompensated heart failure (HF). The sample was stratified according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), with a cut-off of 50%. The objective was to analyse the IAP, the baseline characteristics and degree of congestion using clinical ultrasonography and impedance audiometry.

RESULTS

The study included 56 patients, 22 with HFrEF and 34 with HFpEF. The patients with HFrEF presented a higher prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (11% vs. 6%; p = 0.010) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma (6% vs. 2%; p = 0.025). The IAP was higher in the patients with HFrEF (17.2 vs. 13.3 mmHg; p = 0.004), with no differences in renal function at admission according to the LVEF (CKD-EPI creatinine) (HFrEF 55.0 mL/min/1.73 m² [32.6-83.6] vs. HFpEF 55.0 mL/min/1.73 m² [44.0-74.9]; p = 0.485). The patients with HFrEF presented a more congestive profile determined through ultrasonography (inferior vena cava collapse [26% vs. 50%; p = 0.001]), impedance audiometry (total body water at admission, 46 L vs. 41 L; p = 0.052; and at 72 h, 50.2 L vs. 39.1 L; p = 0.038) and CA125 concentration (68 U/mL vs. 39 U/mL; p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

During the decompensation episodes, the patients with HFrEF had a greater increase in IAP and a higher degree of systemic congestion.

Variation in intraabdominal pressure in patients with acute heart failure according to left ventricular ejection fraction. Results of an intraabdominal pressure study

BACKGROUND

The increase in intraabdominal pressure (IAP) has been correlated with increased creatinine levels in patients with heart failure with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, IAP has not been examined in more stable patients or those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We conducted an observational, prospective descriptive study that measured the IAP of patients hospitalised for decompensated heart failure (HF). The sample was stratified according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), with a cut-off of 50%. The objective was to analyse the IAP, the baseline characteristics and degree of congestion using clinical ultrasonography and impedance audiometry.

RESULTS

The study included 56 patients, 22 with HFrEF and 34 with HFpEF. The patients with HFrEF presented a higher prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (11% vs. 6%; p = 0.010) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma (6% vs. 2%; p = 0.025). The IAP was higher in the patients with HFrEF (17.2 vs. 13.3 mmHg; p = 0.004), with no differences in renal function at admission according to the LVEF (CKD-EPI creatinine) (HFrEF 55.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 [32.6-83.6] vs. HFpEF 55.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 [44.0-74.9]; p = 0.485). The patients with HFrEF presented a more congestive profile determined through ultrasonography (inferior vena cava collapse [26% vs. 50%; p = 0.001]), impedance audiometry (total body water at admission, 46 L vs. 41 L; p = 0.052; and at 72 h, 50.2 L vs. 39.1 L; p = 0.038) and CA125 concentration (68 U/mL vs. 39 U/mL; p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

During the decompensation episodes, the patients with HFrEF had a greater increase in IAP and a higher degree of systemic congestion.