Elevation of arginine vasopressin levels following loop diuretic therapy as a prognostic indicator in heart failure

Advances in congestive heart failure biomarkers

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the elderly worldwide. Although many biomarkers associated with in heart failure, these are generally prognostic and identify patients with moderate and severe disease. Unfortunately, the role of biomarkers in decision making for early and advanced heart failure remains largely unexplored. Previous studies suggest the natriuretic peptides have the potential to improve the diagnosis of heart failure, but they still have significant limitations related to cut-off values. Although some promising cardiac biomarkers have emerged, comprehensive data from large cohort studies is lacking. The utility of multiple biomarkers that reflect various pathophysiologic pathways are increasingly being explored in heart failure risk stratification and to diagnose disease conditions promptly and accurately. MicroRNAs serve as mediators and/or regulators of renin-angiotensin-induced cardiac remodeling by directly targeting enzymes, receptors and signaling molecules. The role of miRNA in HF diagnosis is a promising area of research and further exploration may offer both diagnostic and prognostic applications and phenotype-specific targets. In this review, we provide insight into the classification of different biochemical and molecular markers associated with CHF, examine clinical usefulness in CHF and highlight the most clinically relevant.

Vasopressin: a possible link between hypoxia and hypertension

Cardiovascular and respiratory diseases are frequently associated with transient and prolonged hypoxia, whereas hypoxia exerts pro-hypertensive effects, through stimulation of the sympathetic system and release of pressor endocrine factors. This review is focused on the role of arginine vasopressin (AVP) in dysregulation of the cardiovascular system during hypoxia associated with cardiovascular disorders. AVP is synthesized mainly in the neuroendocrine neurons of the hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus (PVN) and supraoptic nucleus (SON), which send axons to the posterior pituitary and various regions of the central nervous system (CNS). Vasopressinergic neurons are innervated by multiple neuronal projections releasing several neurotransmitters and other regulatory molecules. AVP interacts with V1a, V1b and V2 receptors that are present in the brain and peripheral organs, including the heart, vessels, lungs, and kidneys. Release of vasopressin is intensified during hypernatremia, hypovolemia, inflammation, stress, pain, and hypoxia which frequently occur in cardiovascular patients, and blood AVP concentration is markedly elevated in cardiovascular diseases associated with hypoxemia. There is evidence that hypoxia stimulates AVP release through stimulation of chemoreceptors. It is suggested that acting in the carotid bodies, AVP may fine-tune respiratory and hemodynamic responses to hypoxia and that this effect is intensified in hypertension. There is also evidence that during hypoxia, augmentation of pro-hypertensive effects of vasopressin may result from inappropriate interaction of this hormone with other compounds regulating the cardiovascular system (catecholamines, angiotensins, natriuretic peptides, steroids, nitric oxide). In conclusion, current literature indicates that abnormal mutual interactions between hypoxia and vasopressin may significantly contribute to pathogenesis of hypertension.

Thiazide diuretics and the rate of disease progression in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: an observational study

BACKGROUND

In autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), hypertension is prevalent and cardiovascular events are the main cause of death. Thiazide diuretics are often prescribed as second-line antihypertensives, on top of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade. There is a concern, however, that diuretics may increase vasopressin concentration and RAAS activity, thereby worsening disease progression in ADPKD. We aimed to investigate the validity of these suggestions.

METHODS

We analysed an observational cohort of 533 ADPKD patients. Plasma copeptin (surrogate for vasopressin), aldosterone and renin were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and radioimmunoassay, respectively. Linear mixed models were used to assess the association of thiazide use with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and Cox proportional hazards models for the association with the composite kidney endpoint of incident end-stage kidney disease, 40% eGFR decline or death.

RESULTS

A total of 23% of participants (n = 125) used thiazide diuretics at baseline. Compared with non-users, thiazide users were older, a larger proportion was male, they had lower eGFRs and similar blood pressure under more antihypertensives. Plasma copeptin was higher, but this difference disappeared after adjustment for age and sex. Both renin and aldosterone were higher in thiazide users. There was no difference between thiazide users and non-users in the rate of eGFR decline {difference -0.35 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.83 to -0.14], P = 0.2} during 3.9 years of follow-up (interquartile range 2.5-4.9). This did not change after adjustment for potential confounders [difference final model: 0.08 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% CI -0.46 to -0.62], P = 0.8). In the crude model, thiazide use was associated with a higher incidence of the composite kidney endpoint [hazard ratio (HR) 1.53 (95% CI 1.05-2.23), P = 0.03]. However, this association lost significance after adjustment for age and sex and remained unassociated after adjustment for additional confounders [final model: HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.50-1.29), P = 0.4].

CONCLUSIONS

These data do not show that thiazide diuretics have a detrimental effect on the rate of disease progression in ADPKD and suggest that these drugs can be prescribed as second-line antihypertensives.

The pathophysiology and management of diuretic resistance in patients with heart failure

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study are to investigate the causes of diuretic resistance in patients with advanced congestive heart failure (CHF), since diuretics are the cornerstone of treatment of these patients. Several studies have shown that diuretic resistance in patients with advanced CHF is common, ranging from 25% to 50% in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

In order to get a current perspective as to the magnitude of diuretic resistance in such patients, a focused Medline search of the English language literature was conducted between 2015 and 2020 using the search terms, CHF, diuretics, treatment, resistance, frequency, and 30 papers with pertinent information were selected.

RESULTS

The analysis of data from the selected papers demonstrated that diuretic resistance is common in hospitalized patients with advanced CHF and frequently associated with renal failure, which is secondary to CHF.

CONCLUSIONS

Diuretic resistance appears to be common in patients with advanced CHF and it is mostly due to decreased cardiac output, low blood pressure, decreased glomerular filtration rate, decreased filtration of sodium, and increased tubular reabsorption of sodium. Diuretic resistance in such patients can be overcome with the combination of loop diuretics with thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics, aldosterone antagonists, as well as other agents. The data from these studies in combination with collateral literature will be discussed in this review.

Pathophysiology of Diuretic Resistance and Its Implications for the Management of Chronic Heart Failure

Diuretic resistance implies a failure to increase fluid and sodium (Na+) output sufficiently to relieve volume overload, edema, or congestion, despite escalating doses of a loop diuretic to a ceiling level (80 mg of furosemide once or twice daily or greater in those with reduced glomerular filtration rate or heart failure). It is a major cause of recurrent hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure and predicts death but is difficult to diagnose unequivocally. Pharmacokinetic mechanisms include the low and variable bioavailability of furosemide and the short duration of all loop diuretics that provides time for the kidneys to restore diuretic-induced Na+ losses between doses. Pathophysiological mechanisms of diuretic resistance include an inappropriately high daily salt intake that exceeds the acute diuretic-induced salt loss, hyponatremia or hypokalemic, hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis, and reflex activation of the renal nerves. Nephron mechanisms include tubular tolerance that can develop even during the time that the renal tubules are exposed to a single dose of diuretic, or enhanced reabsorption in the proximal tubule that limits delivery to the loop, or an adaptive increase in reabsorption in the downstream distal tubule and collecting ducts that offsets ongoing blockade of Na+ reabsorption in the loop of Henle. These provide rationales for novel strategies including the concurrent use of diuretics that block these nephron segments and even sequential nephron blockade with multiple diuretics and aquaretics combined in severely diuretic-resistant patients with heart failure.

The prognostic value of brain natriuretic peptide in patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction higher than 60%: a sub-analysis of the J-MELODIC study

Aims

Cardiac function varies in the population of patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; HFpEF). This study investigated the heterogeneity of clinical features associated with HF and the prognostic value of BNP levels in patients with HFpEF.

Methods and results

The study enrolled 288 patients with stable HF and serum creatinine <1.5 mg/dL who were part of the original J‐MELODIC study cohort. They were categorized as having HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; EF ≤ 40%, n = 83) or as having HFpEF (EF > 40%, n = 205). Patients with HFpEF were further categorized as having relatively low LVEF (HFrlEF; EF 40–60%, n = 107) or as having relatively high LVEF (HFrhEF; EF ≥ 60%, n = 98). We defined cardiovascular death and hospitalization for HF as adverse events and evaluated the prognostic value of the BNP levels in each group. There was no significant difference in event‐free survival between HFpEF and HFrEF patients or between HFrhEF and HFrlEF patients. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model revealed that the BNP level was an independent predictor of adverse events in HFrEF patients (hazard ratio: 4.088, 95% confidence interval: 1.178–14.179, P = 0.027) and in HFrlEF patients (hazard ratio: 14.888, 95% confidence interval: 4.969–44.608, P < 0.001) but not in HFrhEF patients (P = 0.767).

Conclusions

The BNP level has prognostic value in HFrlEF but not in HFrhEF. This indicates that HFrhEF and HFrlEF are distinct entities that may require different approaches for the management of HF.