Ultrafiltration for the treatment of congestion: a window into the lung for a better caress to the heart

Peritoneal Dialysis for the Treatment of Cardiorenal Syndrome Type 1: A Prospective Brazilian Study

This study aimed to explore the role of high-volume peritoneal dialysis (HVPD) in cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) type 1 patients in relation to metabolic and fluid control and outcome. Sixty-four patients were treated by HVPD (prescribed Kt/V = 0.50/session), flexible catheter and cycler. Mean age was 68.8 ± 15.4 years, 54.7% needed intravenous inotropic agents and/or intravenous vasodilators, 31.2% were on mechanical ventilation, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was the main cause of acute disease heart failure (ADHF) 48.3%, median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 38% and the main dialysis indications were uremia and hypervolemia. Blood ureic nitrogen and creatinine levels stabilized after 4 sessions at around 50 and 4 mg/dL, respectively. Negative fluid balance (FB) and ultrafiltration (UF) increased progressively and stabilized around 2.6 L and -2.5 L/day, respectively. Weekly-delivered Kt/V was 3.0 ± 0.42, and 32.8% died. There was a significant difference between the survivors (S) and non-survivors (NS) in age (71.4 ± 15.7 vs 63.6 ± 17.6, p < 0.001), main diagnosis of ADHF (ACS: 76.2 vs 34.8%, p = 0.04), mechanical ventilation (52.4 vs 20.1%, p = 0.03), fluid overload (FO) at predialysis moment (52.4 vs 25.6%, p = 0.04), and FB and UF from the 2^nd to 5^th dialysis session. In conclusion, HVPD treatment was effective in CRS type 1 patients, allowing adequate metabolic and fluid control. Age, ACS, FO and positive FB after 2 HVPD sessions were higher in NS patients.

Acute Kidney Injury in Heart Failure Revisited-The Ameliorating Impact of "Decongestive Diuresis" on Renal Dysfunction in Type 1 Acute Cardiorenal Syndrome: Accelerated Rising Pro B Naturetic Peptide Is a Predictor of Good Renal Prognosis

There is mounting evidence that forward heart failure as manifested by low cardiac output alone does not define the degree of renal dysfunction in cardiorenal syndrome. As a result, the term “congestive renal failure” was coined in 2012 by Ross to depict the role of renal venous hypertension in type 1 acute cardiorenal syndrome. If so, aggressive decongestive therapies, either through mechanical ultrafiltration with dialysis machines or pharmacologic ultrafiltration with potent diuretics, would lead to improved cardio and renal outcomes. Nevertheless, as recently as 2012, a review of this literature had concluded that a renal venous hypertension-directed approach using diuretics to manage cardio-renal syndrome was yet to be fully investigated. We, in this review, with three consecutive case series, describe our experience with pharmacologic decongestive diuresis in this paradigm of care and argue for studies of such therapeutic interventions in the management of cardiorenal syndrome. Finally, based on our observations in the Renal Unit, Mayo Clinic Health System, in Northwestern Wisconsin, we have hypothesized that patients with cardiorenal syndrome presenting with accelerated rising Pro B Naturetic Peptide levels appear to represent a group that would have good cardio- and renal-outcomes with such decongestive pharmacologic therapies.

De novo acute heart failure and acutely decompensated chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is one of the most common diseases of adults in Europe, with an overall prevalence of 1-2%. Among persons aged 60 and above, its prevalence is above 10% in men and 8% in women. Acute heart failure has a poor prognosis; it is associated with a high rate of rehospitalization and a 1-year mortality of 20-30%.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent literature, including guidelines, retrieved by a selective search in PubMed.

RESULTS

There are different types of acute heart failure; the basic diagnostic assessment is performed at once and consists of ECG, echocardiography, and the measurement of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) and troponin levels. The most common causes of decompensation are arrhythmia, valvular dysfunction, and acute cardiac ischemia, each of which accounts for 30% of cases. The potential indication for immediate revascularization should be carefully considered in cases where acute heart failure is due to coronary heart disease. The basic treatment of acute heart failure is symptomatic, with the administration of oxygen, diuretics, and vasodilators. Ino-tropic agents, vasopressors, and temporary mechanical support for the circulatory system are only used to treat cardiogenic shock.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of acute heart failure is markedly less evidence-based than that of chronic heart failure. Newer treatment approaches that are intended to improve outcomes still need to be tested in multicenter trials.

Should we extend the application of more frequent dialysis schedules? A 'yes' and a hopeful 'no'

Observational studies associate long dialysis intervals with an excess risk for mortality and cardiovascular disease hospitalizations. The application alternate day dialysis is an appealing possibility to reduce the cardiovascular burden of long dialysis intervals and a small pilot study demonstrated that this regimen allows safe reduction of dry body weight, BP and left ventricular mass index. However, the actual impact of alternate day hemodialysis and of frequent hemodialysis in general on survival remains unknown. Frequent dialysis schedules may increase the risk of arteriovenous fistula problems and the burden of disease and eventually reduce treatment adherence. Furthermore we cannot safely exclude that more frequent dialysis regimens may be harmful. On the other hand increasing the duration of dialysis and/or frequency of hemodialysis in patients with refractory fluid overload, uncontrolled hypertension, hyperphosphatemia, malnutrition or cardiovascular disease is of unquestionable benefit in these problematic patients.Thus the moderators conclusion to the question being asked is a yes and a hopeful "no". Whenever and wherever possible we should pro-actively apply more frequent dialysis regimens, starting with the alternate day approach, in problematic patients. However, extensive application of frequent hemodialysis schedules is by now unjustified. Evidence that these regimens are beneficial mainly derives from observational studies and the possibility that frequent schedules are harmful cannot be excluded. A clinical trial is needed.