Ultrafiltration is better than diuretic therapy for volume-overloaded acute heart failure patients: a meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wobbe B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8024232 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8781783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Measurement of natriuresis has been suggested as a reliable, easily obtainable biomarker for assessment of the response to diuretic treatment in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). Here, to assess whether natriuresis-guided diuretic therapy in patients with AHF improves natriuresis and clinical outcomes, we conducted the pragmatic, open-label Pragmatic Urinary Sodium-based algoritHm in Acute Heart Failure trial, in which 310 patients (45% female) with AHF requiring treatment with intravenous loop diuretics were randomly assigned to natriuresis-guided therapy or standard of care (SOC). In the natriuresis-guided arm, natriuresis was determined at set timepoints, prompting treatment intensification if spot urinary sodium levels were <70 mmol l-1. The dual primary endpoints were 24 h urinary sodium excretion and a combined endpoint of time to all-cause mortality or adjudicated heart failure rehospitalization at 180 days. The first primary endpoint was met, as natriuresis in the natriuresis-guided and SOC arms was 409 ± 178 mmol arm versus 345 ± 202 mmol, respectively (P = 0.0061). However, there were no significant differences between the two arms for the combined endpoint of time to all-cause mortality or first heart failure rehospitalization, which occurred in 46 (31%) and 50 (31%) of patients in the natriuresis-guided and SOC arms, respectively (hazard ratio 0.92 [95% confidence interval 0.62-1.38], P = 0.6980). These findings suggest that natriuresis-guided therapy could be a first step towards personalized treatment of AHF. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04606927 .
| S-EPMC10579092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study compared combination diuretic strategies in acute heart failure (AHF) complicated by diuretic resistance (DR).BackgroundCombination diuretic regimens to overcome loop DR are commonly used but with limited evidence.MethodsThis study was a randomized, double-blinded trial in 60 patients hospitalized with AHF and intravenous (IV) loop DR. Patients were randomized to oral metolazone, IV chlorothiazide, or tolvaptan therapy. All patients received concomitant high-dose IV infusions of furosemide. The primary outcome was 48-h weight loss.ResultsThe cohort exhibited DR prior to enrollment, producing 1,188 ± 476 ml of urine in 12 h during high-dose loop diuretic therapy (IV furosemide: 612 ± 439 mg/day). All 3 interventions significantly improved diuretic efficacy (p < 0.001). Compared to metolazone (4.6 ± 2.7 kg), neither IV chlorothiazide (5.8 ± 2.7 kg; 1.2 kg [95% confidence interval (CI)]: -2.9 to 0.6; p = 0.292) nor tolvaptan (4.1 ± 3.3 kg; 0.5 kg [95% CI: -1.5 to 2.4; p = 0.456) resulted in more weight loss at 48 h. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) cumulative urine output increased significantly and did not differ among those receiving metolazone (7.78 [IQR: 6.59 to 10.10] l) and chlorothiazide (8.77 [IQR: 7.37 to 10.86] l; p = 0.245) or tolvaptan (9.70 [IQR: 6.36 to 13.81] l; p = 0.160). Serum sodium decreased less with tolvaptan than with metolazone (+4 ± 5 vs. -1 ± 3 mEq/l; p = 0.001), but 48-h spot urine sodium was lower with tolvaptan (58 ± 25 mmol/l) than with metolazone (104 ± 16 mmol/l; p = 0.002) and with chlorothiazide (117 ± 14 mmol/l; p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn this moderately sized DR trial, weight loss was excellent with the addition of metolazone, IV chlorothiazide, or tolvaptan to loop diuretics, without a detectable between-group difference. (Comparison of Oral or Intravenous Thiazides vs. tolvaptan in Diuretic Resistant Decompensated Heart Failure [3T]; NCT02606253).
| S-EPMC7058489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLoop diuretics are an essential component of therapy for patients with acute decompensated heart failure, but there are few prospective data to guide their use.MethodsIn a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned 308 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive furosemide administered intravenously by means of either a bolus every 12 hours or continuous infusion and at either a low dose (equivalent to the patient's previous oral dose) or a high dose (2.5 times the previous oral dose). The protocol allowed specified dose adjustments after 48 hours. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours.ResultsIn the comparison of bolus with continuous infusion, there was no significant difference in patients' global assessment of symptoms (mean AUC, 4236±1440 and 4373±1404, respectively; P=0.47) or in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.05±0.3 mg per deciliter [4.4±26.5 μmol per liter] and 0.07±0.3 mg per deciliter [6.2±26.5 μmol per liter], respectively; P=0.45). In the comparison of the high-dose strategy with the low-dose strategy, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater improvement in patients' global assessment of symptoms in the high-dose group (mean AUC, 4430±1401 vs. 4171±1436; P=0.06). There was no significant difference between these groups in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.08±0.3 mg per deciliter [7.1±26.5 μmol per liter] with the high-dose strategy and 0.04±0.3 mg per deciliter [3.5±26.5 μmol per liter] with the low-dose strategy, P=0.21). The high-dose strategy was associated with greater diuresis and more favorable outcomes in some secondary measures but also with transient worsening of renal function.ConclusionsAmong patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00577135.).
| S-EPMC3412356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hospitalisation for acute heart failure (AHF) is associated with high mortality and high rehospitalisation rates. In the absence of evidence-based therapy, treatment is aimed at stabilisation and symptom relief. The majority of AHF patients have signs and symptoms of fluid overload, and, therefore, decongestion is the number one treatment goal. Diuretics are the cornerstone of therapy in AHF, but the treatment effect is challenged by diuretic resistance and poor diuretic response throughout the spectrum of chronic to worsening to acute to post-worsening HF. Adequate dosing and monitoring and evaluation of diuretic effect are important for treatment success. Residual congestion at discharge is a strong predictor of worse outcomes. Therefore, achieving euvolaemia is crucial despite transient worsening renal function.
| S-EPMC7539143 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC3789341 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4974896 | biostudies-other
Project description:Rather than the absolute dose of diuretic or urine output, the primary signal of interest when evaluating diuretic responsiveness is the efficiency with which the kidneys can produce urine after a given dose of diuretic. As a result, we hypothesized that a metric of diuretic efficiency (DE) would capture distinct prognostic information beyond that of raw fluid output or diuretic dose.We independently analyzed 2 cohorts: (1) consecutive admissions at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) with a primary discharge diagnosis of heart failure (n=657) and (2) patients in the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE) data set (n=390). DE was estimated as the net fluid output produced per 40 mg of furosemide equivalents, then dichotomized into high versus low DE based on the median value. There was only a moderate correlation between DE and both intravenous diuretic dose and net fluid output (r(2)?0.26 for all comparisons), indicating that DE was describing unique information. With the exception of metrics of renal function and preadmission diuretic therapy, traditional baseline characteristics, including right heart catheterization variables, were not consistently associated with DE. Low DE was associated with worsened survival even after adjusting for in-hospital diuretic dose, fluid output, in addition to baseline characteristics (Penn: hazards ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.78; P=0.02; ESCAPE: HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.53-5.36; P=0.001).Although in need of validation in less-selected populations, low DE during decongestive therapy portends poorer long-term outcomes above and beyond traditional prognostic factors in patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure.
| S-EPMC4386906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLoop diuretics are common therapy for emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF). Diuretic resistance (DR) is a term used to describe blunted natriuretic response to loop diuretics. It would be important to detect DR prior to it becoming clinically apparent, so early interventions can be initiated. However, several definitions have been proposed, and it is not clear if they identify similar patients. We compared these definitions and described the clinical characteristics of patients who fulfilled them.MethodsTo qualify for this secondary analysis of 1033 ED patients with AHF, all patients needed to receive intravenous diuretics in the ED and have urine available within 24 h of their ED evaluation. A poor diuretic response, suggesting DR, was characterized by (1) a fractional sodium excretion (FeNa) of less than 0.2%; (2) spot urinary sodium of less than 50 meq/L; and (3) a urinary Na/K ratio <1.0. McNemar's test was used to compare the different cohorts identified by the three definitions. Secondary analyses evaluated associations between each DR definition and hospital length of stay (LOS), ED revisits and rehospitalizations for AHF, and mortality using the Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and linear regression or Pearson chi-square test and logistic regression, as appropriate.ResultsThe median age of the 187 patients was 64, and 50% were African-American. There were 5.9% of patients with a FeNa less than 0.2%, 17.1% had urinary sodium less than 50 meq/L, and 10.7% had a urinary Na/K ratio <1.0. The three definitions identified significantly different patients with very little overlap (p < 0.02 for all comparisons). There were 37 (19.8%) patients who were readmitted to the ED or hospital or died within 30 days of ED evaluation. Patients with spot urinary sodium less than 50 meq/L were more likely to be readmitted (p = 0.03).ConclusionsThe patient proportion with poor natriuresis and DR varies depending on the definition used. Early ED therapy would be impacted at different rates if clinical decisions are made based on these definitions. These findings need to be further explored in a prospective ED-based study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00508638.
| S-EPMC5422212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the fact that loop diuretics are a landmark in acute heart failure (AHF) treatment, few trials exist that evaluate whether the duration and timing of their administration and drug amount affect outcome. In this study, we sought to evaluate different loop diuretic infusion doses in relation to outcome and to diuretic response (DR), which was serially measured during hospitalization. METHODS:This is a post-hoc analysis of a DIUR-HF trial. We divided our sample on the basis of intravenous diuretic dose during hospitalization. Patients taking less than 125 mg of intravenous furosemide (median value) were included in the low dose group (LD), patients with a diuretic amount above this threshold were inserted in the high dose group (HD). The DR formula was defined as weight loss/40 mg daily of furosemide and it was measured during the first 24 h, 72 h, and over the whole infusion period. Outcome was considered as death due to cardiovascular causes or heart failure hospitalization. RESULTS:One hundred and twenty-one AHF patients with reduced ejection fractions (EF) were evaluated. The cardiovascular (CV) death/heart failure (HF) re-hospitalization rate was significantly higher in the HD group compared to the LD group (75% vs. 22%; p < 0.001). Both low DR, measured during the entire infusion period (HR 3.25 (CI: 1.92-5.50); p < 0.001) and the intravenous diuretic HD (HR 5.43 [CI: 2.82-10.45]; p < 0.001) were related to outcome occurrence. Multivariable analysis showed that DR (HR 3.01 (1.36-6.65); p = 0.006), intravenous diuretic HD (HR 2.83 (1.24-6.42); p=0.01) and worsening renal function (WRF) (HR 2.21 (1.14-4.28); p = 0.01) were related to poor prognosis. CONCLUSIONS:HD intravenous loop diuretic administration is associated with poor prognosis and less DR. Low DR measured during the whole intravenous administration better predicts outcome compared to DR measured in the early phases. ClinicalTrials.gov Acronym and Identifier Number: DIUR-HF; NCT01441245; registered on 23 September 2011.
| S-EPMC6912499 | biostudies-literature