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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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