Dataset Information

Therapeutic Approach to Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and End-stage Renal Disease.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Several risk factors including Ischemic heart disease, uncontrolled hypertension, high output Heart Failure (HF) from shunting through vascular hemodialysis access, and anemia, contribute to development of HF in patients with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). Guidelinedirected medical and device therapy for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) has not been extensively studied and may have limited safety and efficacy in patients with ESRD. RESULTS:Maintenance of interdialytic and intradialytic euvolemia is a key component of HF management in these patients but often difficult to achieve. Beta-blockers, especially carvedilol which is poorly dialyzed is associated with cardiovascular benefit in this population. Despite paucity of data, Angiotensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEI) or Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs) when appropriately adjusted by dose and with close monitoring of serum potassium can also be administered to these patients who tolerate beta-blockers. Mineralocorticoid receptors in patients with HFrEF and ESRD have been shown to reduce mortality in a large randomized controlled trial without any significantly increased risk of hyperkalemia. Implantable Cardiac-defibrillators (ICDs) should be considered for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with HFrEF and ESRD who meet the implant indications. Furthermore in anemic iron-deficient patients, intravenous iron infusion may improve functional status. Finally, mechanical circulatory support with leftventricular assist devices may be related to increased mortality risk and the presence of ESRD poses a relative contraindication to further evaluation of these devices.

SUBMITTER: Inampudi C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5872264 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Therapeutic Approach to Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and End-stage Renal Disease.

Inampudi Chakradhari C Alvarez Paulino P Asleh Rabea R Briasoulis Alexandros A

Current cardiology reviews 20180301 1

<h4>Background</h4>Several risk factors including Ischemic heart disease, uncontrolled hypertension, high output Heart Failure (HF) from shunting through vascular hemodialysis access, and anemia, contribute to development of HF in patients with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). Guidelinedirected medical and device therapy for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) has not been extensively studied and may have limited safety and efficacy in patients with ESRD.<h4>Results</h4>Maintenan ...[more]

PMID: 29366423

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsSacubitril/valsartan (SV) reduced heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality compared with enalapril in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE-I to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial. However, this trial excluded patients with end stage of renal disease (ESRD); thus, the efficacy and safety of SV in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with ESRD remains uncertain.Methods and resultsWe retrospectively analysed the clinical and laboratory data of 501 HFrEF patients who administered with SV from March 2017 to April 2019 in a single tertiary university hospital. A total of 23 HFrEF patients with ESRD on dialysis [58.3% non-ischaemic heart failure; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): 29.7 ± 4.4%] were included in this study. At baseline and follow-up visit, we evaluated cardiovascular biomarkers such as high-sensitive troponin T (hsTnT), soluble ST2 (sST2), echocardiographic parameters, and clinical and adverse events. The mean dose of SV was 90 ± 43 mg/day at baseline and 123 ± 62 mg/day at last follow-up (follow-up duration: median 132 days). The level of hsTnT was significantly reduced from 236.2 ± 355.3 to 97.0 ± 14.0 pg/mL (P = 0.002), and the sST2 level was significantly reduced from 40.4 ± 44.0 to 19.6 ± 14.1 ng/mL (P = 0.005). LVEF was significantly improved from 29.7 ± 4.4% to 40.8 ± 10.4% (P = 0.002). During the follow-up, up-titration, down-titration, and maintenance of SV dosing were observed in 7 (30%), 5 (21.7%), and 11 patients (47.8%), respectively. SV down-titration group had adverse events including symptomatic hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg) (n = 4) and dizziness (n = 1), but they did not discontinue SV therapy.ConclusionsWe found that SV could safely reduce the hsTnT and sST2 levels and improve LVEF in HFrEF patients with ESRD. As far as we know, this is the first study to show the efficacy and safety of SV in HFrEF with ESRD on dialysis. Larger prospective, long-term follow-up study should be warranted.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of dynamic changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in an all-comer heart failure (HF) population with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%). We sought to identify independent factors related to improvement in EF and to identify risk factors for increased risk of CV events in the subgroups of improved EF (iEF) and non-improved EF (niEF), respecively.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective sub-analysis from the REDEAL HF trial, which included consecutive patients with chronic HF who were hospitalized from July 2009 to December 2017. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography data (interval ≥12 months) of 573 consecutive patients with HFrEF were analysed. iEF was defined as absolute improvement in EF ≥ 10% and follow-up EF over 40%. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, CV hospitalization, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. EF improved in 37.2% of patients with HFrEF during follow-up (median period of 17 months). iEF was independently associated with shorter HF duration (>4 vs. ≤4 years, odd ratio [OR] = 0.477, 95% CI 0.305-0.745), no coronary artery disease (CAD vs. no CAD, OR = 0.583, 95% CI 0.396-0.858), and no ICD implantation (ICD vs. no ICD, OR = 0.341, 95% CI 0.228-0.511). Compared with niEF, iEF was significantly and independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (22.1% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.019; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.674, 95% CI 0.469-0.968), lower CV mortality (8.9% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.015; HR = 0.539, 95% CI 0.317-0.916), and lower CV events risk (27.2% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; HR 0.519, 95% CI 0.381-0.708), after adjustment for age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors. Hypertension (HR = 2.452, P = 0.032) and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >1153 pg/mL, HR = 4.372, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for CV events in the iEF subgroup. ICD implantation (HR = 1.533, P = 0.011), elevated NT-proBNP (HR = 1.626, P = 0.018), increased left atrial volume index (HR = 1.461, P = 0.021), reduced lateral mitral annular plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.478, P = 0.025), and reduced tricuspid plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.491, P = 0.039) were identified as risk factors for CV events in the niEF subgroup.ConclusionsImprovement in EF is independently related to the longer survival and lower CV related mortality and hospitalization rate of HFrEF. Elevated baseline NT-proBNP is identified as the strongest prognostic factor associated with increased CV events risk in HFrEF patients both with and without improved EF, regardless of age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors.

Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.

Project description:BackgroundLifetime risk of heart failure has been estimated to range from 20% to 46% in diverse sex and race groups. However, lifetime risk estimates for the 2 HF phenotypes, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are not known.MethodsParticipant-level data from 2 large prospective cohort studies, the CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study) and MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), were pooled, excluding individuals with prevalent HF at baseline. Remaining lifetime risk estimates for HFpEF (EF ≥45%) and HFrEF (EF <45%) were determined at different index ages with the use of a modified Kaplan-Meier method with mortality and the other HF subtype as competing risks.ResultsWe included 12 417 participants >45 years of age (22.2% blacks, 44.8% men) who were followed up for median duration of 11.6 years with 2178 overall incident HF events with 561 HFrEF events and 726 HFpEF events. At the index age of 45 years, the lifetime risk for any HF through 90 years of age was higher in men than women (27.4% versus 23.8%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFrEF was higher in men than women (10.6% versus 5.8%). In contrast, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was similar in men and women. In race-stratified analyses, lifetime risk for overall HF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (25.9% versus 22.4%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (11.2% versus 7.7%), whereas that for HFrEF was similar across the 2 groups. Among participants with antecedent myocardial infarction before HF diagnosis, the remaining lifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF were up to 2.5-fold and 4-fold higher, respectively, compared with those without antecedent myocardial infarction.ConclusionsLifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF vary by sex, race, and history of antecedent myocardial infarction. These insights into the distribution of HF risk and its subtypes could inform the development of targeted strategies to improve population-level HF prevention and control.

Project description:BackgroundMicrovascular dysfunction plays an important role in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, no mechanistic link between systemic microvasculature and congestion, a central feature of the syndrome, has yet been investigated.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate capillary-interstitium fluid exchange in HFpEF, including lymphatic drainage and the potential osmotic forces exerted by any hypertonic tissue Na+ excess.MethodsPatients with HFpEF and healthy control subjects of similar age and sex distributions (n = 16 per group) underwent: 1) a skin biopsy for vascular immunohistochemistry, gene expression, and chemical (water, Na+, and K+) analyses; and 2) venous occlusion plethysmography to assess peripheral microvascular filtration coefficient (measuring capillary fluid extravasation) and isovolumetric pressure (above which lymphatic drainage cannot compensate for fluid extravasation).ResultsSkin biopsies in patients with HFpEF showed rarefaction of small blood and lymphatic vessels (p = 0.003 and p = 0.012, respectively); residual skin lymphatics showed a larger diameter (p = 0.007) and lower expression of lymphatic differentiation and function markers (LYVE-1 [lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1]: p < 0.05; PROX-1 [prospero homeobox protein 1]: p < 0.001) compared with control subjects. In patients with HFpEF, microvascular filtration coefficient was lower (calf: 3.30 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.33 to 3.88] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 4.66 [IQR: 3.70 to 6.15] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p < 0.01; forearm: 5.16 [IQR: 3.86 to 5.43] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 5.66 [IQR: 4.69 to 8.38] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p > 0.05), in keeping with blood vascular rarefaction and the lack of any observed hypertonic skin Na+ excess, but the lymphatic drainage was impaired (isovolumetric pressure in patients with HFpEF vs. control subjects: calf 16 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 22 ± 4 mm Hg; p < 0.005; forearm 17 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 25 ± 5 mm Hg; p < 0.001).ConclusionsPeripheral lymphatic vessels in patients with HFpEF exhibit structural and molecular alterations and cannot effectively compensate for fluid extravasation and interstitial accumulation by commensurate drainage. Reduced lymphatic reserve may represent a novel therapeutic target.

Dataset Information

Therapeutic Approach to Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and End-stage Renal Disease.

Publications

Therapeutic Approach to Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and End-stage Renal Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets