Cargando…
Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS‐HF
BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration is not commonly used because of higher incidence of worsening renal function without improved decongestion. We examined differential outcomes of high versus low fluid removal and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (EF) in CARRESS‐HF (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Ac...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7955382/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33289458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.015752 |
_version_ | 1783664239657877504 |
---|---|
author | Fudim, Marat Brooksbank, Jeremy Giczewska, Anna Greene, Stephen J. Grodin, Justin L. Martens, Pieter Ter Maaten, Jozine M. Sharma, Abhinav Verbrugge, Frederik H. Chakraborty, Hrishikesh Bart, Bradley A. Butler, Javed Hernandez, Adrian F. Felker, G. Michael Mentz, Robert J. |
author_facet | Fudim, Marat Brooksbank, Jeremy Giczewska, Anna Greene, Stephen J. Grodin, Justin L. Martens, Pieter Ter Maaten, Jozine M. Sharma, Abhinav Verbrugge, Frederik H. Chakraborty, Hrishikesh Bart, Bradley A. Butler, Javed Hernandez, Adrian F. Felker, G. Michael Mentz, Robert J. |
author_sort | Fudim, Marat |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration is not commonly used because of higher incidence of worsening renal function without improved decongestion. We examined differential outcomes of high versus low fluid removal and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (EF) in CARRESS‐HF (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure). METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline characteristics in the ultrafiltration arm were compared according to 24‐hour ultrafiltration‐based fluid removal above versus below the median. Patients were stratified by EF (≤40% or >40%). We compared clinical parameters of clinical decongestion during the hospitalization based on initial (≤24 hours) response to ultrafiltration. Cox‐proportional hazards models were used to identify associations between fluid removal <24 hours and composite of death, hospitalization, or unscheduled outpatient/emergency department visit during study follow‐up. The intention‐to‐treat analysis included 93 patients. Within 24 hours, median fluid removal was 1.89 L (Q1, Q3: 1.22, 3.16). The high fluid removal group had a greater urine output (9.08 versus 6.23 L, P=0.027) after 96 hours. Creatinine change from baseline to 96 hours was similar in both groups (0.10 mg/dL increase, P=0.610). The EF >40% group demonstrated larger increases of change in creatinine (P=0.023) and aldosterone (P=0.038) from baseline to 96 hours. Among patients with EF >40%, those with above median fluid removal (n=17) when compared with below median (n=17) had an increased rate of the combined end point (87.5% versus 47.1%, P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute heart failure, higher initial fluid removal with ultrafiltration had no association with worsening renal function. In patients with EF >40%, ultrafiltration was associated with worsening renal function irrespective of fluid removal rate and higher initial fluid removal was associated with higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes, highlighting variable responses to decongestive therapy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7955382 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79553822021-03-17 Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS‐HF Fudim, Marat Brooksbank, Jeremy Giczewska, Anna Greene, Stephen J. Grodin, Justin L. Martens, Pieter Ter Maaten, Jozine M. Sharma, Abhinav Verbrugge, Frederik H. Chakraborty, Hrishikesh Bart, Bradley A. Butler, Javed Hernandez, Adrian F. Felker, G. Michael Mentz, Robert J. J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration is not commonly used because of higher incidence of worsening renal function without improved decongestion. We examined differential outcomes of high versus low fluid removal and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (EF) in CARRESS‐HF (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure). METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline characteristics in the ultrafiltration arm were compared according to 24‐hour ultrafiltration‐based fluid removal above versus below the median. Patients were stratified by EF (≤40% or >40%). We compared clinical parameters of clinical decongestion during the hospitalization based on initial (≤24 hours) response to ultrafiltration. Cox‐proportional hazards models were used to identify associations between fluid removal <24 hours and composite of death, hospitalization, or unscheduled outpatient/emergency department visit during study follow‐up. The intention‐to‐treat analysis included 93 patients. Within 24 hours, median fluid removal was 1.89 L (Q1, Q3: 1.22, 3.16). The high fluid removal group had a greater urine output (9.08 versus 6.23 L, P=0.027) after 96 hours. Creatinine change from baseline to 96 hours was similar in both groups (0.10 mg/dL increase, P=0.610). The EF >40% group demonstrated larger increases of change in creatinine (P=0.023) and aldosterone (P=0.038) from baseline to 96 hours. Among patients with EF >40%, those with above median fluid removal (n=17) when compared with below median (n=17) had an increased rate of the combined end point (87.5% versus 47.1%, P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute heart failure, higher initial fluid removal with ultrafiltration had no association with worsening renal function. In patients with EF >40%, ultrafiltration was associated with worsening renal function irrespective of fluid removal rate and higher initial fluid removal was associated with higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes, highlighting variable responses to decongestive therapy. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7955382/ /pubmed/33289458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.015752 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Fudim, Marat Brooksbank, Jeremy Giczewska, Anna Greene, Stephen J. Grodin, Justin L. Martens, Pieter Ter Maaten, Jozine M. Sharma, Abhinav Verbrugge, Frederik H. Chakraborty, Hrishikesh Bart, Bradley A. Butler, Javed Hernandez, Adrian F. Felker, G. Michael Mentz, Robert J. Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS‐HF |
title | Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS‐HF |
title_full | Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS‐HF |
title_fullStr | Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS‐HF |
title_full_unstemmed | Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS‐HF |
title_short | Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS‐HF |
title_sort | ultrafiltration in acute heart failure: implications of ejection fraction and early response to treatment from carress‐hf |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7955382/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33289458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.015752 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fudimmarat ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT brooksbankjeremy ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT giczewskaanna ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT greenestephenj ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT grodinjustinl ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT martenspieter ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT termaatenjozinem ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT sharmaabhinav ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT verbruggefrederikh ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT chakrabortyhrishikesh ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT bartbradleya ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT butlerjaved ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT hernandezadrianf ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT felkergmichael ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf AT mentzrobertj ultrafiltrationinacuteheartfailureimplicationsofejectionfractionandearlyresponsetotreatmentfromcarresshf |