Extracorporeal Ultrafiltration vs Conventional Diuretic Therapy in Advanced Decompensated Heart Failure

Heart Failure-Focus on Kidney Replacement Therapy: Why, When, and How?

Heart failure (HF) is a major health problem because of its high prevalence, morbidity, mortality, and cost of care. An important contributor to morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced HF is kidney dysfunction. Almost half of HF patients develop cardiorenal syndrome (CRS). The management of advanced HF complicated by CRS is challenging. Two main strategies have been widely accepted for the management of CRS, namely improving cardiac output and relieving congestion. Diuretics remain the cornerstone and first-line therapy for decongestion; however, a substantial number of CRS patients develop diuretic resistance. In the face of persistent congestion and the progressive deterioration of kidney function, the implementation of kidney replacement therapy may become the only solution. In the review the current evidence on extracorporeal and peritoneal-based kidney replacement techniques for the therapy of CRS patients are presented.

Diuretics for preventing and treating acute kidney injury

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a well-known complication of critical illnesses, significantly affecting morbidity and the risk of death. Diuretics are widely used to ameliorate excess fluid accumulation and oliguria associated with AKI. Their popularity stems from their ability to reduce the energy demands of renal tubular cells by inhibiting transporters and flushing out intratubular casts. Numerous studies have assessed the effects of diuretics in the context of AKI prevention and treatment. However, a comprehensive systematic review addressing this topic has yet to be conducted.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to explore the benefits and harms of diuretics for both the prevention and treatment of AKI.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies was searched up to May 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which diuretics were used to prevent or treat AKI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data using standardised data extraction forms. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where continuous scales of measurement were used to assess the effects of treatment, the standardised mean difference (SMD) was used. The primary review outcomes for AKI prevention studies were the incidence of AKI and any use of kidney replacement therapy (KRT). For treatment studies, the primary outcome was any use of KRT. The certainty of evidence was assessed per outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 studies (83 reports, 9871 participants): 53 prevention studies (8078 participants) and 11 treatment studies (1793 participants). Studies were conducted in the following World Health Organization regions: the Americas (15), Eastern Mediterranean (9), Europe (25), South-East Asia (2), and the Western Pacific (13). Thirty-six studies were single-centre studies, 19 were multicentre, and the setting was unclear in nine studies. Diuretics were compared to placebo, no treatment or conventional therapy, saline solutions (isotonic or hypotonic), 5% dextrose, 5% glucose, Hartmann's solution, and Ringer's acetate. Overall, the risk of bias was low in one study, high in 19 studies, and of some concern in 41 studies. Three studies could not be assessed because they did not report any outcomes of interest. For AKI prevention, compared to control, diuretics may reduce the risk of AKI (38 studies, 5540 participants: RR 0.75, 95%, CI 0.61 to 0.92; I2 = 77%; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce any use of KRT (32 studies, 4658 participants: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence) and death (33 studies, 6447 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of diuretics may result in little or no difference in the need for permanent dialysis (2 studies, 956 participants: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.47; I2 = 21%; low-certainty evidence), hypotension (7 studies, 775 participants: RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.86; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and hypokalaemia (6 studies, 1383 participants: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.73; I2 = 43%; low-certainty evidence), and had uncertain effects on arrhythmias (13 studies, 3375 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.04; I2 = 53%; very-low certainty evidence). Diuretics may make little or no difference to changes in SCr within 30 days (8 studies, 646 participants: SMD 0.41, 95% CI -0.01, to 0.83; I2 = 82%; low-certainty evidence) but it was uncertain whether diuretics increased urinary output (8 studies, 1155 participants: SMD 1.87, 95% CI -0.20 to 3.95; I2 = 99%; very low-certainty evidence). For AKI treatment, diuretics may make little or no difference to any use of KRT (8 studies, 1275 participants: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.04; I2 = 2%; low-certainty evidence) or death (14 studies, 2052 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.22; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Diuretics may increase hypotension (2 studies, 720 participants: RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.41; I2 = 90%; low-certainty evidence) and probably increase arrhythmias (6 studies, 1011 participants: RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.33; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Diuretics may result in little or no difference in hypokalaemia (3 studies, 478 participants: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.31; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether diuretics increased urinary output (3 studies, 329 participants: SMD 4.40, 95% CI -0.94 to 9.74; I2 = 99%; very low-certainty evidence). The need for permanent dialysis and changes in serum creatinine were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When used for the prevention of AKI, diuretics may reduce the risk of AKI. However, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. Diuretics probably reduce the incidence of KRT use, and we are moderately confident in the effect estimate. When used for the treatment of AKI, diuretics may make little or no difference to any use of KRT, and our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. More RCTs are needed to explore the role of diuretics for treating established AKI.

Outcomes of Ultrafiltration in community-based hospitals

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine outcomes of ultrafiltration in real world community-based hospital settings.

BACKGROUND

Ultrafiltration (UF) is an accepted therapeutic option for advanced decompensated heart failure (ADHF). the feasibility of UF in a community hospital setting, by general cardiologists in a start-up program had not been objectively evaluated.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the first-year cohort of ADHF patients treated with UF from 10/1/2019 to 10/1/2020, which totaled 30 patients, utilizing the CHF Solutions Aquadex FlexFlow™ System with active UF rate titration.

RESULTS

Baseline patient characteristics were similar to RCTs: mean age 63, 73 % male; 27 % female; 53 % Caucasian; 47 % African American; 77 % had LVEF ≤ 40. The baseline mean serum creatinine (Cr) was 1.84 ±0.62 mg/dL, mean GFR of 36.95 ±9.60 ml/min. HF re-admission rates were not significantly different than prior studies (17.2 % at 30 d, 23.3 % at 60 d, but in our cohort, per patient HF re-admission rates were reduced significantly by 60 d (0.30 p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed success with UF in mainstream setting with reproducible results of significant volume loss without adverse renal effect, mitigation of recurrent Hdmissions, and remarkable subjective clinical benefit.

Diuretics or ultrafiltration in the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hospitalization for decompensated heart failure is a major public health issue.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis to summarize and analyze if there is a benefit in using ultrafiltration over diuretics in terms of reducing mortality or hospital readmissions, primarily and identified 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 941 patients.

RESULTS

Compared to diuretics, treatment with ultrafiltration was associated with a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations (risk ratio [RR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.96, p = 0.02) and significant increase in weight and net fluid loss (mean difference [MD]: -1.55, CI: -2.36 to -0.74, p = 0.0002) and (MD: -2.10, CI: -3.32 to -0.89, p = 0.0007), respectively. There was no significant difference among treatments regarding the duration of hospitalization, the increase in serum creatinine levels, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with decompensated heart failure, compared to diuretics, ultrafiltration is associated with reduced rehospitalizations and increased weight/net fluid loss.

Utilization of aquapheresis among hospitalized patients with end-stage liver disease: A case series and literature review

Third-spacing of fluid is a common complication in hospitalized patients with decompensated cirrhosis. In addition to ascites, patients with advanced cirrhosis may develop significant peripheral edema, which may limit mobility and exacerbate debility and muscle wasting. Concomitant kidney failure and cardiac dysfunction may lead to worsening hypervolemia, which may ultimately result in pulmonary edema and respiratory compromise. Diuretic use in such patients may be limited by kidney dysfunction and electrolyte abnormalities, including hyponatremia and hypokalemia. A slow, continuous form of ultrafiltration known as aquapheresis is a method of extracorporeal fluid removal whereby a pump generates a transmembrane pressure that forces an isotonic ultrafiltrate across a semipermeable membrane. This leads to removal of an ultrafiltrate that is isotonic to blood without the need for dialysate or replacement fluid as is necessary in other forms of continuous kidney replacement therapy. This technique has been utilized in other conditions including acute decompensated heart failure, with trials showing mixed, but generally favorable results. Herein, we present a series of our own experience using aquapheresis among patients with cirrhosis, review the literature regarding its use in other hypervolemic states, and discuss how we may apply lessons learned from use of aquapheresis in heart failure to patients with end-stage liver disease.

Efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: a meta-analysis

Objective

The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMbase databases from inception to April 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration and conventional diuretics in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Two investigators independently screened all eligible studies and extracted relevant data. The primary outcomes of interest were changes in body weight and creatinine levels, as well as the rate of readmission and mortality within 30 days. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

This meta-analysis included eight studies and found that early ultrafiltration was effective in reducing body weight in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (RR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.54-2.35, P = 0.002), but it also increased serum creatinine (RR = 0.1, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17, P = 0.003). However, it did not reduce the 30-day rehospitalization rate or mortality rate (30-day rehospitalization rate: RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.62-1.14, P = 0.28; Mortality: RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.57-1.44, P = 0.67).

Conclusion

Although early ultrafiltration is more effective in reducing body weight in patients with acute decompensated heart failure, it is associated with an increase in serum creatinine levels and does not reduce the rate of readmission or mortality within 30 days.

Systematic Review Registration

identifier: CRD42023416152.

Ultrafiltration in Heart Failure: A Review

Ultrafiltration is an effective method to get rid of fluid retention and congestion in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) without affecting the circulating volume. Although its efficacy in comparison to diuretics is debatable, the evaluation of our analysis is based on various studies that comprise published clinical trials on ultrafiltration and studies comparing the efficacy of diuretics and ultrafiltration. Apart from this, we also look at literature that provides shortcomings of the said procedure and its scope for future advancements. Heart failure ultimately leads to volume overload, which is a highly concerning complication. Diuretics have been used as a first-line treatment for fluid overload but are becoming inefficacious due to the development of resistance and renal dysfunction. Ultrafiltration, on the other hand, is an attractive alternative to counter volume overload and congestion, which are unresponsive to medical therapy. There is also evidence that it significantly decreases the probability of future episodes of decompensation. There are, however, disagreements about whether ultrafiltration is an effective method to improve mortality in these patients. There is a lack of conclusive studies demonstrating the superiority of one fluid removal method over another. Hence, it is imperative to continue searching for the most effective method to treat congestion. Priority should be given to more mechanistic studies regarding ultrafiltration.

Extracorporeal veno-venous ultrafiltration in congestive heart failure: What's the state of the art? A mini-review

Hospitalizations for heart failure exceed 1 million per year in both the United States and Europe and more than 90% are due to symptoms and signs of fluid overload. Rates of rehospitalizations or emergency department visit at 60 days are remarkable regardless of whether loop diuretics were administered at low vs high doses or by bolus injection vs continuous infusion. Ultrafiltration (UF) has been considered a promising alternative to stepped diuretic therapy and it consists in the mechanical, adjustable removal of iso-tonic plasma water across a semipermeable membrane with the application of hydrostatic pressure gradient generated by a pump. Fluid removal with ultrafiltration presents several advantages such as elimination of higher amount of sodium with less neurohormonal activation. However, the conflicting results from UF studies highlight that patient selection and fluid removal targets are not completely understood. The best way to assess fluid status and therefore establish the fluid removal target is also still a matter of debate. Herein, we provide an up-to-date systematic review about the role of ultrafiltration among patients with fluid overload and its gaps in daily practice.

Ultrafiltration versus Diuretics on Prognostic Cardiac and Renal Biomarkers in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Existing systematic reviews have insufficiently delineated the differing cardiac and renal profile of ultrafiltration compared to diuretics as a method of decongestion in acute decompensated heart failure. This meta-analysis will investigate the impact of ultrafiltration compared to diuretics on prognostic cardiac and renal biomarkers. We searched PubMed Central, Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid Embase, all EBM reviews, and Web of Science Core Collection for randomised controlled trials published before 21 July 2022. Our main outcome measures were cardiac (brain natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide) and renal biomarkers (serum creatinine, serum sodium, and blood urea nitrogen). A total of 10 randomised trials were included in our analysis after screening. An inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis of the pooled results demonstrated no significant difference between ultrafiltration and diuretics for brain natriuretic peptide, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, creatinine, sodium and long-term blood urea nitrogen. However, ultrafiltration produced statistically greater increases in blood urea nitrogen in the short-term (mean difference, 3.88; 95% confidence interval 0.59-7.17 mg/dL). Overall, ultrafiltration produces a similar impact on prognostic cardiac and renal biomarkers when compared to diuretic therapy. We highlight ultrafiltration's significant impact on short-term BUN and recommend further research to investigate more optimal protocols of ultrafiltration administration.

Safety and efficacy of ultrafiltration versus diuretics in patients with decompensated heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ultrafiltration (UF) is used for fluid removal patients with acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) refractory to diuretics. However, data on the relative merits of UF and diuretics are limited.

METHODS

Online databases were queried to identify clinical trials on the comparison of UF and diuretics. The major adverse cardiovascular (MACE) and its components (mortality and re-hospitalizations) were compared using the random-effects model to calculate the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 10 clinical trials comprising 838 patients (413 UF, 425 diuretics) were included in the analysis. At a median follow-up of 90 days, there was no significant difference in the odds of MACE (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.07) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.77-1.52) between patients undergoing UF compared with those receiving diuretics therapy. The need for emergency department visits (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.38-2.90), all-cause admissions (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72-1.30) and heart failure-related re-hospitalization (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21-1.02) was also similar between the two groups. The in-hospital risk for hypotension (OR 0.49, 0.23-1.04) and post-therapy creatinine rise>0.3 mg/dL (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74-1.89) was also not significantly different between the UF and diuretics arms. A sensitivity analysis of MACE and mortality did not show any deviation from the pooled outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFrEF, UF appears to be safe but might not provide significant benefits in terms of reducing the risk of mortality or readmission rates compared with those treated with diuretics.

Ultrafiltration for acute heart failure

BACKGROUND

Pharmacotherapies such as loop diuretics are the cornerstone treatment for acute heart failure (AHF), but resistance and poor response can occur. Ultrafiltration (UF) is an alternative therapy to reduce congestion, however its benefits, efficacy and safety are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of UF compared to diuretic therapy on clinical outcomes such as mortality and rehospitalisation rates.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook a systematic search in June 2021 of the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science CPCI-S and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the WHO ICTRP platform in October 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared UF to diuretics in adults with AHF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for any further information, and language interpreters to translate texts. We assessed risk of bias in included studies using Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials involving 1190 people. We included people who had clinical signs of acute hypervolaemia. We excluded critically unwell people such as those with ischaemia or haemodynamic instability. Mean age ranged from 57.5 to 75 years, and the setting was a mix of single and multi-centre. Two trials researched UF as a complimentary therapy to diuretics, while the remaining trials withheld diuretic use during UF. There was high risk of bias in some studies, particularly with deviations from the intended protocols from high cross-overs as well as missing outcome data for long-term follow-up.  We are uncertain about the effect of UF on all-cause mortality at 30 days or less (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 2.85; 3 studies, 286 participants; very low-certainty evidence). UF may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; 9 studies, 987 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may reduce all-cause rehospitalisation at 30 days or less (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.09; 3 studies, 337 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may slightly reduce all-cause rehospitalisation at longest available follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; 6 studies, 612 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may reduce heart failure-related rehospitalisation at 30 days or less (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.04; 2 studies, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF probably reduces heart failure-related rehospitalisation at longest available follow-up, with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 10 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; 4 studies, 636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  No studies measured need for mechanical ventilation.  UF may have little or no effect on serum creatinine change at 30 days since discharge (mean difference (MD) 14%, 95% CI -12% to 40%; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may increase the risk of new initiation of renal replacement therapy at longest available follow-up (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.75; 4 studies, 332 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There is an uncertain effect of UF on the risk of complications from central line insertion in hospital (RR 4.16, 95% CI 1.30 to 13.30; 6 studies, 779 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review summarises the latest evidence on UF in AHF. Moderate-certainty evidence shows UF probably reduces heart failure-related rehospitalisation in the long term, with an NNTB of 10. UF may reduce all-cause rehospitalisation at 30 days or less and at longest available follow-up. The effect of UF on all-cause mortality at 30 days or less is unclear, and it may have little effect on all-cause mortality in the long-term.  While UF may have little or no effect on serum creatinine change at 30 days, it may increase the risk of new initiation of renal replacement therapy in the long term. The effect on complications from central line insertion is unclear.  There is insufficient evidence to determine the true impact of UF on AHF. Future research should evaluate UF as an adjunct therapy, focusing on outcomes such as heart failure-related rehospitalisation, cardiac mortality and renal outcomes at medium- to long-term follow-up.

Ultrafiltration for patients with acute decompensated heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ultrafiltration plays an indispensable role in relieving congestion and fluid retention in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in recent years. So far, there is no consistent agreement about whether early ultrafiltration (UF) is a first-line treatment for patients with ADHF. We, therefore, conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of UF.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared UF with diuretics in patients with ADHF and included our interested outcomes. The primary outcomes are heart failure rehospitalization, all-cause rehospitalization, and mortality. The second outcomes are fluid loss, weight loss, and adverse events. RevMan Version 5.4.1 was used to analyze the data of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies with 1197 patients were included. Our results showed a reduction in heart failure rehospitalization (risk ratio [RR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-0.87, P = .003) and all-cause rehospitalization (RR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.92; P = .02), an increase in fluid loss (1.47 L, 95% CI: 0.95-1.99 L, P < .001) and weight loss (1.65 kg, 95% CI: 0.90-2.41 kg; P < .001). There was no difference in mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.78-1.51; P = .62). There were inconsistent agreements about which group have more total adverse events. Subgroup analysis showed that UF with larger mean fluid-remove rate (≥200 mL/h) could significantly remove more fluid, lose more weight, and decrease heart failure rehospitalization. Less weight loss for patients with ADHF may correlated to higher percent of ischemic etiology (ischemic etiology ≥50%).

CONCLUSION

Although UF is more effective in removing fluid than diuretics and decrease rehospitalization of heart failure and all causes, there is not enough evidence to prove that UF is superior because of adverse events and mortality in the UF group. The mean fluid-removal rates should be set to ≥200 mL/h. Patient with different etiology may have different effects when treated with UF and it is a weak conclusion.Trial registration: The systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews. (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, registration number CRD42021245049).

Efficacy and Renal Tolerability of Ultrafiltration in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of 19 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a life-threatening and costly disease. Controversy remains regarding the efficacy and renal tolerability of ultrafiltration for treating ADHF. We therefore performed this meta-analysis to evaluate this clinical issue.Methods: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database of controlled trials was performed from inception to March 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials. The quality of the included trials and outcomes was evaluated with the use of the risk of bias assessment tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, respectively. The risk ratio and the standardized mean difference (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) were computed and pooled with fixed-effects or random-effects models.Results: This meta-analysis included 19 studies involving 1281 patients. Ultrafiltration was superior to the control treatments for weight loss (WMD 1.24 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38‐2.09 kg, P=0.004) and fluid removal (WMD 1.55 L, 95% CI 0.51‐2.59 l, P=0.003) and was associated with a significant increase in serum creatinine level compared with the control treatments (SMD 0.15 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.00‐0.30 mg/dL, P=0.04). However, no significant effects were found for serum N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide level, length of hospital stay, all-cause mortality, or all-cause rehospitalization in the ultrafiltration group.Conclusions: The use of ultrafiltration in patients with ADHF is superior to the use of the control treatments for weight loss and fluid removal, but has adverse renal effects and lacks significant effects on long-term prognosis, indicating that this approach to decongestion in ADHF patients is efficient for fluid management but less safe renally.

Ultrafiltration is better than diuretic therapy for volume-overloaded acute heart failure patients: a meta-analysis

Studies on the effectiveness of ultrafiltration (UF) in patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) have led to heterogeneous study outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of UF therapy in ADHF patients. We searched the medical literature to identify well-designed studies comparing UF with the usual diuretic therapy in this setting. Systematic evaluation of 8 randomized controlled trials enrolling 801 participants showed greater fluid removal (difference in means 1372.5 mL, 95% CI 849.6 to 1895.4 mL; p < 0.001), weight loss (difference in means 1.592 kg, 95% CI 1.039 to 2.144 kg; p < 0.001) and lower incidences of worsening heart failure (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.94, p = 0.022) and rehospitalization for heart failure (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.82, p = 0.003) without a difference in renal impairment (OR 1.386, 95% CI 0.870 to 2.209; p = 0.169) or all-cause mortality (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.71, p = 0.546). UF increases fluid removal and weight loss and reduces rehospitalization and the risk of worsening heart failure in congestive patients, suggesting ultrafiltration as a safe and effective treatment option for volume-overloaded heart failure patients.

Outcomes With Ultrafiltration Among Hospitalized Patients With Acute Heart Failure (from the National Inpatient Sample)

Acute heart failure (HF) management is a complex and often involves a delicate balance of both cardiac and renal systems. Although pharmacologic diuresis is a mainstay of the pharmacologic management of decompensated HF, ultrafiltration (UF) represents a nonpharmacologic approach in the setting of diuretic resistance. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the 2009 through 2014 hospitalization data from the National Inpatient Sample. The study population consisted of hospitalizations with a discharge Diagnosis Related Groups of HF who were older than 18 years of age, did not have end-stage kidney disease, acute kidney injury and had not undergone hemodialysis or hemofiltration. There were 6,174 hospitalizations which included UF among the 7,799,915 hospitalizations for HF. Hospitalizations which included UF were among patients significantly younger in age (68.1 ± 1.0 vs 73.8 ± 0.1 years), male (61.9% vs 47.7%), and with higher prevalence of co-morbid conditions including chronic kidney disease (58% vs 31%), diabetes mellitus (53% vs 42%), and higher rates of co-morbidity (Charlson comorbidity score ≥2, 92% vs 80%). All-cause mortality was significantly higher among hospitalizations which included an UF (4.68% vs 2.24%). Hospitalizations with UF had a longer mean length of stay (6.2 vs 4.3 days, p <0.01) average total charges ($42,035 vs 24,867 USD, p <0.01) as compared with those without UF. Hospitalizations with UF were associated with a greater adjusted odds of all-cause mortality (odds ratio: 3.36, [95% confidence interval 1.76,6.40]), greater than DRG-level target length of stay (odds ratio, 2.46; [95 confidence interval 1.65,3.67]), and a 72% increase in the average hospital charges. In conclusion, hospitalizations which included UF identified a subgroup of HF patients with more co-morbid conditions who are at higher risk of mortality and increased resource burden in terms of length of stay and costs. These findings also highlight that the need for UF may identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a multidisciplinary cardiorenal approach to alter the trajectory of their disease.

Efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure with volume overload: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Background

Ultrafiltration decreases total body water and improves the alveolar to arterial oxygen gradient. The aims of the study were to investigate the efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients.

Methods

100 patients with ADHF within 24 h of admission were randomly assigned into early ultrafiltration (n = 40) or torasemide plus tolvaptan (n = 60) groups. The primary outcomes were weight loss and an increase in urine output on days 4 and 8 of treatment.

Results

Patients who received early ultrafiltration for 3 days achieved a greater weight loss (kg) (− 2.94 ± 3.76 vs − 0.64 ± 0.91, P < 0.001) and urine increase (mL) (198.00 ± 170.70 vs 61.77 ± 4.67, P < 0.001) than the torasemide plus tolvaptan group on day 4. From days 4 to 7, patients in the early ultrafiltration group received sequential therapy of torasemide and tolvaptan. Better control of volume was reflected in a greater weight loss (− 3.72 ± 3.81 vs − 1.34 ± 1.32, P < 0.001) and urine increase (373.80 ± 120.90 vs 79.5 ± 52.35, P < 0.001), greater reduction of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (pg/mL) (− 1144 ± 1435 vs − 654.02 ± 889.65, P = 0.037), NYHA (New York Heart Association) functional class (− 1.45 ± 0.50 vs − 1.17 ± 0.62, P = 0.018), jugular venous pulse (JVP) score (points) (− 1.9 ± 1.13 vs − 0.78 ± 0.69, P < 0.001), inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter (mm) (− 15.35 ± 11.03 vs − 4.98 ± 6.00, P < 0.001) and an increase in the dyspnea score (points) (4.08 ± 3.44 vs 2.77 ± 2.03, P = 0.035) in the early ultrafiltration group on day 8. No significant differences were found in the readmission and mortality rates in the 2 patient groups at the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups. Both groups had a similar stable renal profile.

Conclusion

Early ultrafiltration is superior to diuretics for volume overload treatment initiation of ADHF patients.

Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000030696, Registered 10 March 2020—Retrospectively registered, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=29099.

Patients with high-dose diuretics should get ultrafiltration in the management of decompensated heart failure: a meta-analysis

The identification of specific patients with decompensated heart failure (DHF) who may benefit from ultrafiltration (UF) is important in clinical practice. We undertook a meta-analysis to compare the effects of ultrafiltration and diuretics on major clinical outcomes. The outcomes included weight change, length of hospital stay, rehospitalization for HF, mortality, change in serum creatinine, dialysis dependence, and adverse outcomes. We identified 14 trials including 975 patients with HF, met the eligibility criteria. There was a reduction in heart failure-related rehospitalization in ultrafiltration group when compared with the diuretic group. Subgroup analyses revealed a trend toward the decreased HF readmissions in ultrafiltration plus diuretic therapy group but did not reach statistical significance compared with ultrafiltration alone therapy. Overall, UF treatment did not produce apparent beneficial effects for weight loss, lengths of hospitalization, total mortality, the change of serum creatinine, and dialysis rate. Subgroup analyses showed increase in the serum creatinine were significantly higher for a higher dose regimen (> 200 mg/day) when compared with lower dose diuretic therapy (< 200 mg/day). As for adverse events, UF patients were associated with an increased risk of hypotension and lower risk of neurologic symptoms. The current results revealed ultrafiltration was associated with significant reduction in the rate of rehospitalization. Increase in the serum creatinine was observed in patients with high-dose diuretic regimen. Patients with high-dose diuretics should get ultrafiltration therapy.

Impact of furosemide on mortality and the requirement for renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of furosemide on mortality and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) in adult patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) based on current evidence.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (Medline) and Embase were searched from 1998 to October 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

We retrieved data from randomised controlled trials comparing prevention/treatment with furosemide at any stage of AKI with alternative treatment/standard of care/placebo. The outcome was short-term mortality and the requirement for RRT, when applicable.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted appropriate data. PRISMA guidelines were followed for data preparation and reporting.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified 20 relevant studies (2608 patients: 1330 in the treatment arm and 1278 in the control arm). Heterogeneity between studies was deemed acceptable, and the publication bias was low. Furosemide had neither an impact on mortality (OR = 1.015; 95% CI 0.825-1.339) nor the need for RRT (OR = 0.947; 95% CI 0.521-1.721). Furosemide had also no effect on the outcomes in strata defined by intervention strategy (prevention/treatment), AKI origin (cardio-renal syndrome, post-cardiopulmonary bypass, critical illness), control arm comparator (RRT, saline/placebo/standard of care) and its dose (< 160/≥ 160 mg) (p > 0.05 for all). Subjects who received furosemide with matched hydration in prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) had a less frequent need for RRT (OR = 0.218; 95% CI 0.05-1.04; p = 0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

Furosemide administration has neither an impact on mortality nor the requirement for RRT. Patients at risk of CIN may benefit from furosemide administration. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to verify these findings.

Extracorporeal Isolated Ultrafiltration for Management of Congestion in Heart Failure and Cardiorenal Syndrome

Acute decompensated heart failure has the highest rate of hospital readmission among all medical conditions and portends a significant financial burden on health care system. Congestion, the hallmark of acute decompensated heart failure, represents the primary reason for hospitalization and the driver of adverse outcomes in these patients. Although diuretic-based medical regimens remain the mainstay of management of acute decompensated heart failure, they often show suboptimal efficacy and safety profiles in this setting. Mechanical extraction of excess fluid through extracorporeal ultrafiltration therapy has been proposed as a mechanistically relevant option in this setting. The advent of simplified, portable, and user-friendly devices that are dedicated to ultrafiltration therapy for these patients has renewed the interest in this therapeutic modality. In this article, we provide a brief overview of the initial mechanistic studies followed by the key clinical findings of the most recent landmark trials. The shortcomings of these studies are discussed in detail because not only do they provide the appropriate context in which the results are to be interpreted, but more importantly they also highlight the existing knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in future studies. Finally, selected practical and conceptual considerations and controversies are reviewed with regard to evidence-based ultrafiltration therapy.

Readmission rate after ultrafiltration in acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Significance of ultrafiltration in acute decompensated heart failure remains unclear. We performed meta-analysis to determine its role in reducing readmissions after acute decompensated heart failure. MEDLINE was searched using PUBMED from inception to March 22, 2017 for prospective randomized control trials comparing ultrafiltration to diuretics in acute decompensated heart failure. Five hundred ninety studies were found; nine studies with 820 patients were included. Studies with renal replacement therapy bar ultrafiltration, chronic decompensated heart failure, and non-English language were excluded. RevMan Version 5.3 was used for analysis. The primary outcomes analyzed were cumulative and 90 days readmissions secondary to heart failure and all-cause readmissions. Baseline characteristics were similar. One hundred eighty-eight patients were readmitted with heart failure, 77 vs 111 favoring ultrafiltration; risk ratio (RR) = 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-1.02, p = 0.07, I ²  = 47%). Ninety days readmissions were 43 vs 67 favoring ultrafiltration; RR = 0.65 (95%CI, 0.47-0.90, p = 0.01, I ²  = 0%). Ultrafiltration showed significantly higher fluid removal and weight loss. Hypotension was common in ultrafiltration (24 vs 13, OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 0.98-4.32, p = 0.06, I ²  = 0%). Ultrafiltration showed reduced 90 days heart failure readmissions and trend towards reduced cumulative hospital readmissions. Renal and cardiovascular outcomes and hospital stay were similar.

Defining the role of ultrafiltration therapy in acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ultrafiltration (UF) has emerged as an alternative therapy for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) due to its physiological benefits such as improvement in neurohormonal activation. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and the impact on outcomes for UF therapy as compared to conventional medical treatment. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to December 2015 for randomized controlled trials that examined UF therapy in ADHF and used diuretic-based regimens as the control group. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, we explored the impact on weight change, fluid removal, renal function, rehospitalization rate, and mortality. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) was calculated for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous data. Seven studies with a total of 771 patients met our selection criteria. UF therapy led to greater weight loss (WMD 1.35, 95 % CI 0.49-2.21, p < 0.01) and fluid removal (WMD 1.81, 95 % CI 1.01-2.62, p = <0.01) while the impact of UF on renal function was comparable with medical treatment (WMD 0.06, 95 % CI -0.11 to 0.22, p = 0.48), UF decreased heart failure rehospitalization rate (OR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.37-0.98, p = 0.04) but did not change mortality (OR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.68-1.57, p = 0.89). Compared with diuretic-based medical treatment, UF therapy is more efficient in decongestion of patients with ADHF. It does not have a deleterious impact on renal function and can improve heart failure-related rehospitalization rate, albeit without conferring a survival benefit.

Extracorporeal ultrafiltration for acute heart failure: patient selection and perspectives

Most patients presenting with acute heart failure (AHF) show signs and symptoms of fluid overload, which are closely associated with short-term and long-term outcomes. Ultrafiltration is an extremely appealing strategy for patients with AHF and concomitant overt fluid overload not fully responsive to diuretic therapy. However, although there are several theoretical beneficial effects associated with ultrafiltration, published reports have shown controversial findings. Differences in selection of the study population and in ultrafiltration indications and protocols, and high variability in the pharmacologic therapy used for the control group could explain some of these conflicting results. Here, we aimed to provide an overview on the current medical evidence supporting the use of ultrafiltration in AHF, with a special focus on the identification of potential candidates who may benefit the most from this therapeutic option.

Therapeutic effects of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells against brain death-induced remote organ damage and post-heart transplant acute rejection

We tested the hypothesis that allogenic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) alleviated brain death (BD)-induced remote organ damage and events of post heart-transplant acute rejection. To determine the impact of BD on remote organ damage, adult-male F344 rats (n=24) were categorized sham-control (SC), BD and BD^MSC (allogenic ADMSC/1.2 × 10⁶ cells/derived from F344 by intravenous transfusion 3 h after BD procedure). To determine the protective effect of allogenic ADMSCs, animals (n=8/each group in F344/Lewis) were categorized into groups BD-T(F344 heart transplanted into Lewis by 6h after BD), BD-T^MSC(D1/3) (BD induction for 6h then heart transplantation, and allogenic ADMSCs transfusion at days 1 and 5 after heart transplantation), BD-T^MSC(3h) (BD + ADMSC/1.2 × 10⁶ cells at 3h and heart transplantation at 6h after BD) and BD-T^{MSC(3h, D1/3)} [BD + ADMSC/1.2 × 10⁶ cells at 3h and heart transplantation at 6h after BD, then ADMSC therapy by days 1/3]. At day 5 post procedure, liver, kidney and heart specimens showed higher molecular-cellular levels of inflammation, immune reaction, apoptosis and fibrosis in BD than in SC that were reversed in BD^MSC (all P < 0.0001). These molecular-cellular expressions and circulating/splenic levels of innate/adoptive immune cells were higher in BD-T, lowest in BD-T^{MSC(3h, D1/3)} and higher BD-T^MSC(3h) in than BD-T^MSC(D1/3), whereas heart function showed an opposite pattern among the four groups (all P < 0.001). In conclusion, ADMSCs suppressed BD-caused remote organ damage and heart-transplant rejection.

Natriuretic Peptides as Biomarkers for Congestive States: The Cardiorenal Divergence

Congestion represents the primary reason for hospitalization of patients with heart failure and is associated with adverse outcomes. Fluid overload has been shown to be inadequately addressed in a significant subset of these patients in part due to lack of robust, reliable, and readily available biomarkers for objective assessment and monitoring of therapy. Natriuretic peptides have long been used in this setting, often in conjunction with other assessment tools such as imaging studies. Patients presenting with concomitant cardiac and renal dysfunction represent a unique population with regard to congestion in that the interactions between the heart and the kidney can affect the utility and performance of biomarkers of fluid overload. Herein, we provide an overview of the currently available evidence on the utility of natriuretic peptides in these patients and discuss the clinical conundrum associated with their use in the setting of renal dysfunction. We highlight the potential divergence in the role of natriuretic peptides for assessment of volume status in a subset of patients with renal dysfunction who receive renal replacement therapy and call for future research to elucidate the utility of the biomarkers in this setting.

Ultrafiltration versus intravenous loop diuretics in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

Background Intravenous loop diuretics are the first-line therapy for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) but many patients are discharged with unresolved congestion resulting in higher re-hospitalization and mortality rates. Ultrafiltration (UF) is a promising intervention for ADHF. However, studies comparing UF to diuretics have been inconsistent in their clinical outcomes. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed. Trials were included if they met the following criteria: (1) randomization with a control group, (2) comparison of UF with a loop diuretic, and (3) a diagnosis of ADHF. Results When compared to diuretics, UF was associated with a reduced risk of clinical worsening (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI: 0.38-0.86, P-value 0.007), increased likelihood for clinical decongestion (OR 2.32, 95% CI: 1.09-4.91, P-value 0.03) with greater weight (0.97 Kg, 95% CI: 0.52-1.42, P-value <0.0001) and volume reduction (1.11 L, 95% CI: 0.68-1.54, P-value <0.0001). The overall risk of re-hospitalization (OR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.62-1.38, P-value 0.70), return to emergency department (OR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.44-1.08, P-value 0.10) and mortality (OR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.60-1.62, P-value 0.97) were not significantly improved by UF treatment. Conclusions UF is associated with significant improvements in clinical decongestion but not in rates of re-hospitalization or mortality.

A Practical Comprehensive Approach to Management of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) has a high incidence and prevalence in the USA and worldwide. It is a very common cause of significant morbidity and mortality with serious cost implications on the US health sector. The primary focus of this review is to synthesize an effective comprehensive care plan for patients in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) based on the most current evidence available. It begins with a brief overview of the pathophysiology, clinical presentation and evaluation of patients in ADHF. It then reviews management goals and treatment guidelines, with emphasis on challenges presented by diuretic resistance and worsening renal function (WRF). It provides information on recognition of advanced HF even during acute presentation, estimation of prognosis and proactive identification of patients that will benefit from mechanical cardiac devices, transplantation and palliative care/hospice. In addition, it presents strategies to address the problem of readmissions, which is an ominous prognostic factor with enormous economic burden.

Role of isolated ultrafiltration in the management of chronic refractory and acute decompensated heart failure

Chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) refractory to medical therapy represent therapeutic challenges. In such patients, attempts to reduce pulmonary and systemic congestion frequently produce deterioration of renal function. In studies of patients with chronic severe CHF refractory to medical therapy (including loop diuretics), isolated ultrafiltration was frequently able to relieve congestive symptoms by precise removal of extracellular water and sodium, and in some cases was able to restore responsiveness to loop diuretics. Randomized controlled trials comparing isolated ultrafiltration and medical therapy (mainly loop diuretics) in patients with ADHF failed to demonstrate the superiority of isolated ultrafiltration over diuretic therapy with respect to renal function and mortality. Isolated ultrafiltration reduced length of hospital stay in several studies. At this time, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of isolated ultrafiltration as initial therapy of ADHF.

[Congestive heart failure: Treatment with ultrafiltration]

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence rate of congestive heart failure is approximately 2% in high-income countries. The aim of this study was to assess the overall benefit of ultrafiltration therapy in patients with acute or persistent congestive heart failure.

METHODS

We conducted a health technology assessment following the EUnetHTA guidelines, with systematic literature review from bibliographic medical databases, independent experts and manufacturer interviews.

RESULTS

Thirteen clinical trials and five meta-analyses were examined. In the most recent one, 608 patients were included, of which 304 received ultrafiltration therapy and 304 received intravenous loop diuretics. Ultrafiltration therapy seems to be more beneficial regarding the fluid removal and the body weight reduction, (mean difference respectively 1.44kg, IC95% [0.29; 2.59], P-value=0.01 and 1.28L [0.43; 2.12], P-value=0.003). No difference has been showed in overall mortality, renal function, hospital readmission or safety. Medico-economic studies are incomplete and contradictory.

CONCLUSION

Ultrafiltration therapy seems to be effective, most likely for patients ineligible or resistant to intravenous diuretics. But most topics remain uncertain, mainly impact on overall mortality, safety and cost-effectiveness. Given these knowledge-gaps, the generalization of ultrafiltration therapy should be examined cautiously, and conditional upon a large-scale systematic evaluation.

Ultrafiltration Therapy for Heart Failure: Balancing Likely Benefits against Possible Risks

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.

Extracorporeal ultrafiltration therapy for acute decompensated heart failure

Congestion is the most common reason for hospitalization of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and adversely impacts their outcomes. Extracorporeal ultrafiltration (UF) therapy has re-emerged as an effective strategy for decongestion in this setting. This article is intended to discuss key concepts in UF and its technique, provide a brief historical view of UF application for decongestion in ADHF, review the hemodynamic and neurohormonal effects of UF and their positive effects on the pathophysiology of ADHF, discuss the findings of the landmark trials in this field, and explain key findings of these studies as well as the apparent discrepancies in their findings. In a separate section we discuss the intricacies of renal dysfunction in ADHF as it plays a very important role in understanding the current evidence and designing futures clinical trials of UF in ADHF. In the end, the authors provide their perspective on the future role of UF in management of patients with ADHF and congestion.

Efficacy and safety of ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure patients with renal insufficiency

Ultrafiltration (UF) is an alternative strategy to diuretic therapy for the treatment of patients with decompensated heart failure. The impact of UF in decompensated heart failure with renal insufficiency remains unclear. A literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the use of UF in decompensated heart failure patients with renal insufficiency.Seven RCTs with 569 participants were eligible for analysis. There was significantly more 48 hour weight loss (WMD 1.59, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.86; P = 0.01; I2 = 68%) and 48 hour fluid removal (WMD 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.82; P < 0.0001; I2 = 43%) in the UF group compared to the control group. Serum creatinine (WMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.33; P = 0.61; I2 = 77%) and serum creatinine changes (WMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.26; P = 0.61; I2 = 77%) were similar between the UF and control groups. All-cause mortality (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.55; P = 0.83; I2 = 0.0%) and all-cause rehospitalization (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.92; P = 0.94; I2 = 52%) were also similar between the UF and control groups. Adverse events such as infection, anemia, hemorrhage, worsening heart failure, and other cardiac disorders did not differ significantly between the UF and control groups.UF is an effective and safe therapeutic strategy and produces greater weight loss and fluid removal without affecting renal function, mortality, or rehospitalization in patients with decompensated heart failure complicated by renal insufficiency.

Continuous ultrafiltration in acute decompensated heart failure: current issues and future directions

Most patients hospitalized for acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) present with symptoms and signs of volume overload, which are also associated with high rates of death and re-hospitalization. Several studies have investigated the possible use of extracorporeal ultrafiltration in the management of ADHF, evaluating potential clinical benefits in terms of hospitalization and survival rates versus those of conventional diuretic therapy. Though ultrafiltration remains an extremely appealing therapeutic option for patients with AHDF, some of the most recent studies have reported conflicting results. Differences in the selection of study population, heterogeneity of the indications for the use of ultrafiltration, disparity in the ultrafiltration protocols, and high variability in the pharmacologic therapies used for the control group could explain some of these contradictory findings. The purpose of the present review is to provide an overview and an update on the mechanisms and clinical effects of ultrafiltration and on currently available evidence supporting its use in ADHF.

Meta-Analysis of Ultrafiltration versus Diuretics Treatment Option for Overload Volume Reduction in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

INTRODUCTION

Although diuretics are mainly used for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), inadequate responses and complications have led to the use of extracorporeal ultrafiltration (UF) as an alternative strategy for reducing volume overloads in patients with ADHF.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to perform meta-analysis of the results obtained from studies on extracorporeal venous ultrafiltration and compare them with those of standard diuretic treatment for overload volume reduction in acute decompensated heart failure.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched using a pre‑specified criterion. Pooled estimates of outcomes after 48 h (weight change, serum creatinine level, and all-cause mortality) were computed using random effect models. Pooled weighted mean differences were calculated for weight loss and change in creatinine level, whereas a pooled risk ratio was used for the analysis of binary all-cause mortality outcome.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies, involving 613 patients, met the eligibility criteria. The mean weight loss in patients who underwent UF therapy was 1.78 kg [95% Confidence Interval (CI): -2.65 to -0.91 kg; p < 0.001) more than those who received standard diuretic therapy. The post-intervention creatinine level, however, was not significantly different (mean change = -0.25 mg/dL; 95% CI: -0.56 to 0.06 mg/dL; p = 0.112). The risk of all-cause mortality persisted in patients treated with UF compared with patients treated with standard diuretics (Pooled RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.64-1.56; p = 0.993).

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard diuretic therapy, UF treatment for overload volume reduction in individuals suffering from ADHF, resulted in significant reduction of body weight within 48 h. However, no significant decrease of serum creatinine level or reduction of all-cause mortality was observed.

Ultrafiltration for congestive heart failure: the past and the present

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview on the most recent evidence for the use of extracorporeal and peritoneal ultrafiltration in heart failure, focusing on the major publications from the last few years.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been several studies investigating the possible use of extracorporeal and peritoneal ultrafiltration in the management of acute and chronic heart failure. These trials have investigated the potential benefits and advantages of ultrafiltration over conventional medical therapy, in terms of clinical outcomes.

SUMMARY

Although ultrafiltration remains an extremely appealing therapeutic option for patients with heart failure and congestion, with several theoretical beneficial effects, some of the most recent studies have reported inconsistent findings. Differences in the selection of the study population, heterogeneity of the indications for use of ultrafiltration, variation in the ultrafiltration protocols, and high variability in the pharmacologic therapy used for the control group could explain some of these conflicting findings.

New therapeutic options in heart failure. What's on the horizon? An overview

Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome responsible for high morbidity and mortality in the world. Despite advances in the management of heart failure, the prognosis of these patients remains poor and there is a critical need for new treatment strategies improving the clinical outcomes. New approaches in heart failure therapies target cellular mechanisms, as well as mechanical and structural aspects of heart failure that are not addressed by recent therapies. These include abnormalities in molecular mechanisms, electrical conduction and ventricular remodeling. This review presents the pathophysiological basis, mechanisms of action and available clinical efficacy and safety data of drugs and mechanical therapies that are currently under development.

Extracorporeal ultrafiltration for heart failure: focus on organ cross talk and clinical trials

Despite major advances in pharmacological therapy and cardiac devices, heart failure patients continue to be frequently (re-)hospitalized with signs and symptoms of fluid overload. Diuretics improve the symptoms of fluid overload, but their effectiveness is reduced by a number of factors including excess salt intake, underlying chronic kidney disease, renal adaptation to their actions and neurohormonal activation. Ultrafiltration (UF) is a mechanical method of fluid removal with several potential advantages over diuretic-based conventional therapies: several recent studies have demonstrated favorable clinical response to UF therapy. Such studies have shown that removal of large amounts of isotonic fluid, in addition to relieving symptoms of congestion, can improve exercise capacity, reduce cardiac filling pressures, restore diuretic responsiveness, and portend a favorable effect on cardio-pulmonary, cardiorenal interactions, and neurohormonal hyperactivation. However, despite these proposed benefits, so far, no clinical study has yet been carried out to explore the impact of UF therapy on hard clinical endpoints such as long-term mortality. In this article, we review a number of mechanistic aspects of UF therapy, with particular emphasis on cardio-pulmonary and cardiorenal interactions, and revisit the results of more recent clinical trials in order to highlight the characteristics that can help identify patients who are more likely to benefit from this therapeutic modality.

Acute effects of ultrafiltration on aortic mechanical properties determined by measurement of pulse wave velocity and pulse propagation time in hemodialysis patients

Objective:

The effects of acute hemodialysis session on pulse wave velocity are conflicting. The aim of the current study was to assess the acute effects of ultrafiltration on the aortic mechanical properties using carotid-femoral (aortic) pulse wave velocity and pulse propagation time.

Methods:

A total of 26 (12 women, 14 men) consecutive patients on maintenance hemodialysis (mean dialysis duration: 40.7±25.6 (4-70) months) and 29 healthy subjects (13 women, 16 men) were included in this study. Baseline blood pressure, carotid-femoral (aortic) pulse wave velocity, and pulse propagation time were measured using a Complior Colson device (Createch Industrie, France) before and immediately after the end of the dialysis session.

Results:

While systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, pulse pressure, and pulse wave velocity were significantly higher in patients on hemodialysis than in healthy subjects, pulse propagation time was significantly higher in healthy subjects. Although body weight, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, pulse pressure, and pulse wave velocity were significantly decreased, heart rate and pulse propagation time were significantly increased after ultrafiltration. There was a significant positive correlation between pulse wave velocity and age, body height, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean blood pressure, pulse pressure, and heart rate.

Conclusion:

Although hemodialysis treatment may chronically worsen aortic mechanical properties, ultrafiltration during hemodialysis may significantly improve aortic pulse wave velocity, which is inversely related to aortic distensibility and pulse propagation time.

Cardiorenal syndrome: ultrafiltration therapy for heart failure--trials and tribulations

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.