Utilization of aquapheresis among hospitalized patients with end-stage liver disease: A case series and literature review

Third-spacing of fluid is a common complication in hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis. In addition to ascites, patients with advanced cirrhosis may develop significant peripheral edema, which may limit mobility and exacerbate debility and muscle wasting. Concomitant kidney failure and cardiac dysfunction may lead to worsening hypervolemia, which may ultimately result in pulmonary edema and respiratory compromise. Diuretic use in such patients may be limited by kidney dysfunction and electrolyte abnormalities, including hyponatremia and hypokalemia. A slow, continuous form of ultrafiltration known as aquapheresis is a method of extracorporeal fluid removal whereby a pump generates a transmembrane pressure that forces an isotonic ultrafiltrate across a semipermeable membrane. This leads to removal of an ultrafiltrate that is isotonic to blood without the need for dialysate or replacement fluid as is necessary in other forms of continuous kidney replacement therapy. This technique has been utilized in other conditions including acute decompensated heart failure, with trials showing mixed, but generally favorable results. Herein, we present a series of our own experience using aquapheresis among patients with cirrhosis, review the literature regarding its use in other hypervolemic states, and discuss how we may apply lessons learned from use of aquapheresis in heart failure to patients with end-stage liver disease.

Prognosis of Patients with Acute Kidney Injury due to Type 1 Cardiorenal Syndrome Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

INTRODUCTION

The prognosis of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) caused by type 1 cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is unclear. We investigated the in-hospital mortality and prognostic factors in these patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 154 consecutive adult patients who received CRRT for AKI caused by type 1 CRS between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019. We excluded patients who underwent cardiovascular surgery and those with stage 5 chronic kidney disease. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to analyze independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

The median age of patients at admission was 74.0 years (interquartile range: 63.0-80.0); 70.8% were male. The in-hospital mortality rate was 68.2%. Age ≥80 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-2.87; p = 0.004), previous hospitalization for acute heart failure (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.13-2.46; p = 0.01), vasopressor or inotrope use (HR, 5.88; 95% CI, 1.43-24.1; p = 0.014), and mechanical ventilation at CRRT initiation (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.46-3.45; p < 0.001) were associated with in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

In our single-center study, the use of CRRT for AKI due to type 1 CRS was associated with high in-hospital mortality.

Device-based therapy for decompensated heart failure: An updated review of devices in development based on the DRI2P2S classification

Congestive heart failure (HF) is a devastating disease leading to prolonged hospitalization, high morbidity and mortality rates, and increased costs. Well-established treatments for decompensated or unstable patients include medications and mechanical cardiac support devices. For acute HF decompensation, new devices are being developed to help relieve symptoms and recover heart and renal function in these patients. A recent device-based classification scheme, collectively classified as DRI2P2S, has been proposed to better describe these new device-based therapies based on their mechanism: dilators (increase venous capacitance), removers (direct removal of sodium and water), inotropes (increase left ventricular contractility), interstitials (accelerate removal of lymph), pushers (increase renal arterial pressure), pullers (decrease renal venous pressure), and selective (selective intrarenal drug infusion). In this review, we describe the new class of medical devices with the most current results reported in preclinical models and clinical trials.

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.

Patients with high-dose diuretics should get ultrafiltration in the management of decompensated heart failure: a meta-analysis

The identification of specific patients with decompensated heart failure (DHF) who may benefit from ultrafiltration (UF) is important in clinical practice. We undertook a meta-analysis to compare the effects of ultrafiltration and diuretics on major clinical outcomes. The outcomes included weight change, length of hospital stay, rehospitalization for HF, mortality, change in serum creatinine, dialysis dependence, and adverse outcomes. We identified 14 trials including 975 patients with HF, met the eligibility criteria. There was a reduction in heart failure-related rehospitalization in ultrafiltration group when compared with the diuretic group. Subgroup analyses revealed a trend toward the decreased HF readmissions in ultrafiltration plus diuretic therapy group but did not reach statistical significance compared with ultrafiltration alone therapy. Overall, UF treatment did not produce apparent beneficial effects for weight loss, lengths of hospitalization, total mortality, the change of serum creatinine, and dialysis rate. Subgroup analyses showed increase in the serum creatinine were significantly higher for a higher dose regimen (> 200 mg/day) when compared with lower dose diuretic therapy (< 200 mg/day). As for adverse events, UF patients were associated with an increased risk of hypotension and lower risk of neurologic symptoms. The current results revealed ultrafiltration was associated with significant reduction in the rate of rehospitalization. Increase in the serum creatinine was observed in patients with high-dose diuretic regimen. Patients with high-dose diuretics should get ultrafiltration therapy.

Early continuous ultrafiltration in Chinese patients with congestive heart failure (EUC-CHF): study protocol for an open-label registry-based prospective clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Conventional pharmacologic therapies aim to reduce fluid overload in advanced heart failure (HF) represented by intravenous (IV) loop diuretics (LDs) have sometimes not so efficacious and been reported to have side effects such as unpredictable removal of water and sodium and electrolyte disturbance. It is not certain whether early ultrafiltration (UF) is effective than LDs in relieving edema. Given the weakness of evidence for early UF in patients with fluid overload, recommendations of UF in guidelines is considered as second-line therapy only for patients with refractory congestion, who failed to respond to LD-based strategies.

METHODS

The early continuous ultrafiltration in Chinese patients with congestive heart failure (EUC-CHF) trial is an open-label, registry-based, prospective study, recruiting patients with severe acute decompensated HF who are hospitalized for HF worsening due to overt fluid overload 24 h from hospital admission. Forty patients will be enrolled to two treatment groups (n = 20 for each group). The primary outcomes are the changes of weight loss and dyspnea severity score after treatment, as well as the occurrence of clinically overt major bleeding.

DISCUSSION

EUC-CHF trial was primarily designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early UF in patients with acute decompensated HF to reduce volume overload and improve clinical outcome. The trial aims to determine if early UF in acute HF is superior to IV LDs in clinical parameter improvement without adverse events and prevents rehospitalization up to 30 days. Also the trial is expected to establish a scoring system based on Chinese population to guide early UF treatment in appropriate patients. EUC-CHF is one of the first controlled trials tailored to determine the benefit of UF with 24 h from hospital admission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR1800019556. Registered on 18 November 2018.

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.

Interactions cardiorénales

Hypertension is common in patients with chronic renal disease particularly those with diabetes. It is sometimes resistant to the pharmacological treatment. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone may be indicated here. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have a Class 1, Level A indication for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. There is an associated risk of worsening renal function and of hyperkalemia which does not hinder their clinical benefit. However, an appropriate biological monitoring is warranted, along with potential dose adaptations. Cardiorenal syndrome significantly worses the prognosis of congestive heart failure. The use of ultrafiltration can be effective when conventional treatments failed. Its place in the front line needs to be evaluated.

Ultrafiltration in heart failure: Finding the entrance

Ultrafiltration stands as an alternate treatment option for patients with acute or chronic advanced heart failure and associated kidney injury. The optimal access site for this therapy needs careful patient evaluation and communication, and this is especially important for chronic treatment plans. A new prospective study published in the journal provides insight on the optimal access site and offers directions for future research.

Renal Replacement Therapy in Patients with Heart and Kidney Failure

The incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) is high as CKD and CHF share underlying risk factors such as arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus and atherosclerosis. Cardiac failure leads to renal hypoperfusion and dysfunction and then fluid overload and need for aggressive diuretic therapy. However, development of diuretic resistance represents a significant problem in the management of these patients. The role of Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) is important for patients who do not response to conservative management of fluid overload facilitating the failing heart to restore function. According to the guidelines, venovenous isolated Ultrafiltration (UF) is indicated for patients with refractory congestion not responding to medical therapy with loop diuretics and infusion of dopamine. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the effect of UF vs. IV furosemide for decompensated heart failure showed a benefit of UF on total body weight loss and on readmissions due to heart failure in patients with decompensated heart failure and CKD. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) can provide efficient ultrafiltration and sodium extraction in volume overloaded patients followed by decline of hospitalization days, decrease of body weight and improvement of LVEF in patients with refractory heart failure. The continuous draw of ultrafiltrate is followed by a lesser risk of abrupt hypotension and better preservation of the residual kidney function. This represents a significant advantage of PD over intermittent UF by dialysis. In conclusion, application of UF by dialysis and PD is followed by significant total body weight loss, reduced need for hospital readmissions and better quality of life. PD has a higher probability of preservation of residual kidney function and can be used by patients at home.

[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.

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.