12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: lessons learned from hospitalized heart failure registries.

          Heart failure is a global pandemic affecting an estimated 26 million people worldwide and resulting in more than 1 million hospitalizations annually in both the United States and Europe. Although the outcomes for ambulatory HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (EF) have improved with the discovery of multiple evidence-based drug and device therapies, hospitalized heart failure (HHF) patients continue to experience unacceptably high post-discharge mortality and readmission rates that have not changed in the last 2 decades. In addition, the proportion of HHF patients classified as having a preserved EF continues to grow and may overtake HF with a reduced EF in the near future. However, the prognosis for HF with a preserved EF is similar and there are currently no available disease-modifying therapies. HHF registries have significantly improved our understanding of this clinical entity and remain an important source of data shaping both public policy and research efforts. The authors review global HHF registries to describe the patient characteristics, management, outcomes and their predictors, quality improvement initiatives, regional differences, and limitations of the available data. Moreover, based on the lessons learned, they also propose a roadmap for the design and conduct of future HHF registries. Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cardiorenal syndrome.

            The term cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) increasingly has been used without a consistent or well-accepted definition. To include the vast array of interrelated derangements, and to stress the bidirectional nature of heart-kidney interactions, we present a new classification of the CRS with 5 subtypes that reflect the pathophysiology, the time-frame, and the nature of concomitant cardiac and renal dysfunction. CRS can be generally defined as a pathophysiologic disorder of the heart and kidneys whereby acute or chronic dysfunction of 1 organ may induce acute or chronic dysfunction of the other. Type 1 CRS reflects an abrupt worsening of cardiac function (e.g., acute cardiogenic shock or decompensated congestive heart failure) leading to acute kidney injury. Type 2 CRS comprises chronic abnormalities in cardiac function (e.g., chronic congestive heart failure) causing progressive chronic kidney disease. Type 3 CRS consists of an abrupt worsening of renal function (e.g., acute kidney ischemia or glomerulonephritis) causing acute cardiac dysfunction (e.g., heart failure, arrhythmia, ischemia). Type 4 CRS describes a state of chronic kidney disease (e.g., chronic glomerular disease) contributing to decreased cardiac function, cardiac hypertrophy, and/or increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Type 5 CRS reflects a systemic condition (e.g., sepsis) causing both cardiac and renal dysfunction. Biomarkers can contribute to an early diagnosis of CRS and to a timely therapeutic intervention. The use of this classification can help physicians characterize groups of patients, provides the rationale for specific management strategies, and allows the design of future clinical trials with more accurate selection and stratification of the population under investigation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Wireless pulmonary artery haemodynamic monitoring in chronic heart failure: a randomised controlled trial.

              Results of previous studies support the hypothesis that implantable haemodynamic monitoring systems might reduce rates of hospitalisation in patients with heart failure. We undertook a single-blind trial to assess this approach. Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure, irrespective of the left ventricular ejection fraction, and a previous hospital admission for heart failure were enrolled in 64 centres in the USA. They were randomly assigned by use of a centralised electronic system to management with a wireless implantable haemodynamic monitoring (W-IHM) system (treatment group) or to a control group for at least 6 months. Only patients were masked to their assignment group. In the treatment group, clinicians used daily measurement of pulmonary artery pressures in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the control group. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of heart-failure-related hospitalisations at 6 months. The safety endpoints assessed at 6 months were freedom from device-related or system-related complications (DSRC) and freedom from pressure-sensor failures. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00531661. In 6 months, 83 heart-failure-related hospitalisations were reported in the treatment group (n=270) compared with 120 in the control group (n=280; rate 0·31 vs 0·44, hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·60-0·84, p<0·0001). During the entire follow-up (mean 15 months [SD 7]), the treatment group had a 39% reduction in heart-failure-related hospitalisation compared with the control group (153 vs 253, HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·55-0·75; p<0·0001). Eight patients had DSRC and overall freedom from DSRC was 98·6% (97·3-99·4) compared with a prespecified performance criterion of 80% (p<0·0001); and overall freedom from pressure-sensor failures was 100% (99·3-100·0). Our results are consistent with, and extend, previous findings by definitively showing a significant and large reduction in hospitalisation for patients with NYHA class III heart failure who were managed with a wireless implantable haemodynamic monitoring system. The addition of information about pulmonary artery pressure to clinical signs and symptoms allows for improved heart failure management. CardioMEMS. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                8301365
                4429
                J Am Coll Cardiol
                J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
                Journal of the American College of Cardiology
                0735-1097
                1558-3597
                30 August 2017
                16 May 2017
                08 October 2017
                : 69
                : 19
                : 2428-2445
                Affiliations
                [a ]Advocate Heart Institute, Naperville, Illinois
                [b ]Department of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy
                [c ]International Renal Research Institute of Vicenza (IRRIV), Vicenza, Italy
                [d ]Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
                [e ]Centro Cardiologico Monzino, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Milan, Italy
                [f ]Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
                [g ]Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
                [h ]Division of Cardiology, Ahmanson University of California at Los Angeles Cardiomyopathy Center, Los Angeles, California
                [i ]Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                [j ]Baltimore Veterans’ Affairs Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland
                [k ]Sharp Healthcare, San Diego, California
                [l ]San Diego Cardiac Center, San Diego, California
                [m ]Division of Nephrology, Hypertension, and Renal Transplantation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
                [n ]Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
                [o ]Coridea, LLC, New York, New York
                [p ]Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Genk-Biomedical Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium
                [q ]Division of Nephrology, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                [r ]Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [s ]Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
                [t ]Department of Internal Medicine, Program of Applied Translational Research, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [u ]University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Cardiology, Groningen, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Dr. Maria Rosa Costanzo, Advocate Medical Group Midwest Heart Specialists, Edward Heart Hospital, 4th Floor, 801 South Washington Street, PO Box 3226, Naperville, Illinois 60566. mariarosa.costanzo@ 123456advocatehealth.com
                Article
                NIHMS899192
                10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.528
                5632523
                28494980
                cae3486e-ecb5-4330-a12d-eaccda99bb43

                THIS IS AN OPEN ACCESS ARTICLE UNDER THE CCBY-NC-ND LICENSE ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                biomarkers,creatinine,diuretics,glomerular filtration rate,venous congestion

                Comments

                Comment on this article