Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

In-Depth Review

Free Access

Extracorporeal Ultrafiltration for Acute Heart Failure: Lost Battle or Lasting Opportunity?

Koratala A. · Kazory A.

Author affiliations

Division of Nephrology, Hypertension and Renal Transplantation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., USA

Corresponding Author

Amir Kazory, MD

Division of Nephrology, Hypertension and Renal Transplantation

University of Florida, College of Medicine

1600 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32610-0224 (USA)

E-Mail amir.kazory@medicine.ufl.edu

Related Articles for ""

Blood Purif 2017;43:1-10

Abstract

The negative prognostic impact of congestion and worsening renal function in patients with decompensated heart failure (HF) has been widely recognized. As diuretics are thought to provide suboptimal results and are associated with a number of adverse effects, a number of diuretic-sparing therapeutic strategies have been explored. Extracorporeal ultrafiltration (UF) represents an intriguing option that presumably lacks many of the untoward effects of diuretic-based regimens while portending several advantages. However, conflicting data have recently emerged in relation to some of its previously proposed beneficial effects possibly due to counterbalance of the underexplored mechanisms. Herein, the existing literature on the role of UF therapy for management of acute decompensated HF is briefly reviewed with special emphasis on its impact on surrogates of efficacy and safety such as excess fluid removal and renal function. A number of topics relevant to cardiorenal syndrome such as congestion and sodium removal are also discussed.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel


Background

Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem with a prevalence of more than 5.8 million in the United States and more than 23 million worldwide [1]. Acute decompensated HF (ADHF), defined as ‘gradual or rapid change in HF signs and symptoms resulting in a need for urgent therapy', accounts for more than 1 million hospitalizations in the United States annually, with costs reaching $30.7 billion in 2012 [2,3]. In spite of the major advances in chronic HF management, the morbidity and mortality of ADHF remain high, resulting in the significant impairment of the quality of life of the patients and high health care cost burden. Congestion is the primary reason for hospitalization in a great majority of patients with ADHF [4]. It has been shown that right ventricular systolic pressure and pulmonary artery diastolic pressure increase significantly several days prior to admission for ADHF suggesting that subclinical volume overload precedes clinical congestion [5]. Moreover, adequate decongestion determined by either invasive or noninvasive parameters has been linked with improved outcomes in these patients [6]. Currently available therapeutic regimens for decongestion, which heavily rely on diuretic use, are associated with a number of shortcomings (table 1). Diuretics are known to cause electrolyte abnormalities, deterioration of renal function, neurohormonal activation, and non-renal adverse effects. Suboptimal diuresis, diuretic resistance, and unpredictability of the therapeutic response pose additional challenges for the use of these medications in the setting of ADHF, which in turn lead to worsening or lingering congestion. In a study of more than 50,000 patients, it was revealed that nearly half of the patients admitted for ADHF and congestion do not experience clinically relevant reduction in their weight during hospitalization [7]. Moreover, observational data are suggestive of an association between high-dose loop diuretic therapy and adverse outcomes. However, since patients with severe congestion are the ones who require higher doses of diuretics, it is not yet clear whether the diuretic dose is indeed a marker of severity of the disease or a cause for adverse outcomes [8,9]. Unfortunately, the newer pharmacologic agents such as endothelin receptor antagonists, vasopressin receptor antagonists, and adenosine-A1 receptor antagonists have failed to prove their role as safe and effective alternatives to conventional therapies. Consequently, there has been a renewed interest in exploring non-pharmacologic therapies like mechanical extraction of the excess fluid (i.e. ultrafiltration (UF)) as an effective alternative to the conventional approaches aimed at decongestion in ADHF. UF therapy has several proposed advantages including relatively rapid, predictable, and adjustable fluid removal, activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system to a lower degree compared with diuretics, and more effective sodium removal. The proposed benefits of UF therapy are summarized in table 2.

Table 1

Potential shortcomings of diuretic use in the treatment of HF

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/526194

Table 2

Proposed advantages of UF for HF

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/526193

Efficacy and Safety

Because congestion is the major cause for hospitalization in the majority of patients with ADHF and portends poor outcomes, the efficacy of the therapeutic options is mainly determined by how well they can decongest the patients [10,11]. Two primary surrogates commonly used for evaluation and monitoring of decongestion are the ability of a therapeutic modality to remove excess fluid and the associated weight loss. Safety of the ADHF therapy is of utmost importance and commonly includes various markers and definitions of impairment in renal function. Renal dysfunction is one of the strongest predictors of poor clinical outcomes in this setting and the risk of mortality in patients with reduced glomerular filtration rate is reported to be more than double that of those without renal impairment [12]. It is also shown that worsening renal function (WRF) during the treatment of ADHF could be associated with poor outcomes irrespective of the baseline kidney function [13].

Emerging data suggest that congestion has a bidirectional relationship with both the kidney and the heart in the setting of cardiorenal syndrome, where acute decompensation of the heart contributes to deterioration in renal function through a number of mechanisms leading to low forward flow and high backward pressure in the kidney (fig. 1). Interestingly, congestion has also been shown to affect the impact of renal dysfunction on clinical outcomes and can be considered a link between the surrogates of efficacy and safety of therapies for ADHF. Indeed, an increase in serum creatinine that parallels fluid removal and weight loss is not associated with poor outcomes [14]. The complex interactions between congestion and other pathophysiologic mechanisms involved in HF and cardiorenal syndrome are beyond simple impact on hemodynamics, and are indeed reminiscent of the pro-inflammatory role of fluid overload in the setting of acute kidney injury [15,16,17,18,19]. Therefore, in order to fully examine the role of various therapeutic options for ADHF and compare their impact, these interactions need to be taken into account.

Fig. 1

Bi-directional pathways linking HF, renal dysfunction, and congestion in cardiorenal syndrome. Decompensation of HF can lead to the deterioration in renal function via exacerbated neurohormonal activity (i.e. low forward flow) or through fluid overload and renal venous congestion (i.e. high backward pressure). UF could counter these maladaptive interactions mainly by correcting congestion. LVEDP = Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure; LVF = left ventricular function. Adopted with permission from [48].

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/526191

In addition to WRF, outcome measures such as hospital readmission rates and prolonged hospital stays contribute to low quality of life of HF patients and high health care cost burden. The mortality rate of ADHF also remains significantly high. In a study that included Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized between 1998 and 2008 with a principal discharge diagnosis code for HF in United States and Puerto Rico, the risk-adjusted 1 year mortality was close to 30% [20].

Clinical Studies on UF

Several clinical studies have studied the role of UF in the management of patients with ADHF after it was first proposed for this indication in 1970s by Silverstein et al. [21]. The initial studies focused on the mechanistic aspects of UF and its effects on various physiologic, neurohumoral, and hemodynamic parameters [22,23,24]. Marketing of the newer user-friendly portable devices that are dedicated to UF for HF, with the ability of using peripheral or midline venous catheters, low blood flow rate, and low extracorporeal blood volume generated further interest in this modality. Later, more clinical studies were designed to assess the reproducibility of preliminary findings and to provide answer to practical questions such as indications, optimal timing, efficacy, and untoward effects. In this study, we briefly review the findings of the most important studies in this field and provide explanations for some of the results. As mentioned earlier, fluid removal and weight change have commonly been used to define the efficacy of UF therapy, while impact on renal function in general is considered a measure of safety. A number of secondary endpoints such as HF-related rehospitalization and length of hospital stay have also been evaluated in the UF studies. Selected studies exploring the role of UF therapy in the management of ADHF have been summarized in table 3.

Table 3

Selected trials of UF in HF

http://www.karger.com/WebMaterial/ShowPic/526192

Decongestion

Until 2005, although several studies had already reported high efficacy of UF therapy in terms of decongestion, they included a small number of patients or lacked an appropriately matched control group. The relief for acutely fluid-overloaded patients with decompensated congestive heart failure trial randomized 40 ADHF patients with fluid overload to either receive a single 8 h UF session in addition to usual care, or usual care alone [25]. Patients in the UF group had significantly greater fluid removal (4,650 and 2,838 ml in the UF and usual care groups respectively, p = 0.001). After 48 h, fluid removal was 8,415 and 5,375 ml in the UF and usual care groups respectively (p = 0.012). Weight loss after 24 h, the primary end point, was higher in the UF group but failed to reach statistical significance (2.5 vs. 1.86 kg in the UF and usual care groups respectively, p = 0.240). Compared to usual care, UF was not associated with significant changes in heart rate, blood pressure, or electrolytes. This study showed the tendency of UF therapy for better decongestion and set the stage for larger trials.

UF versus intravenous diuretics for patients hospitalized for ADHF (UNLOAD) trial is a large multicenter randomized controlled trial of 200 patients that compared the effect of UF (n = 100) and standard therapy (n = 100) in patients admitted with ADHF and hypervolemia [26]. In this study, patients with a serum creatinine level of greater than 3 mg/dl were excluded. Along with 2 liters/day fluid restriction, all patients received low-sodium (2 g/day) diet during admission. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers were continued throughout the study as tolerated. In the UF arm, during the first 48 h of enrollment, hypervolemia was treated exclusively with UF and intravenous diuretics were prohibited. The investigators reported that the net fluid loss after 48 h was greater in the UF group than in the standard-care group (4.6 ± 2.6 vs. 3.3 ± 2.6 liters; p = 0.001). Weight loss was also greater in the UF group than in the standard-care group (5.0 ± 3.1 vs. 3.1 ± 3.5 kg; p = 0.001). In both arms, a significant correlation existed between the 48-hour weight and fluid loss (r = -0.60 and -0.40, respectively, p = 0.001). Interestingly, despite more significant decongestion, dyspnea scores were found to be similar in both therapy arms. It has been suggested that the greater efficacy of UF therapy in excess fluid removal and decongestion is associated with improvement in hemodynamic status without exacerbation of neurohormonal activity. In a randomized controlled trial on 30 patients with ADHF, Giglioli et al. [29] used Pressure Recording Analytical Method to continuously monitor the cardiovascular impact of decongestion before, during, at the end of treatment, and 36 h after completing therapy. Compared to diuretics, the UF group showed a significant improvement in several hemodynamic parameters including stroke volume index (114.0 ± 11.7%; p < 0.001) and cardiac index (123.0 ± 20.8%; p < 0.001), and a significant reduction in systemic vascular resistance 36 h after the treatment (88.0 ± 10.9%; p < 0.001). Patients treated with UF also showed a significant decrease in serum aldosterone (0.24 ± 0.25 vs. 0.86 ± 1.04 nmol/l; p < 0.001) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide levels (2,823 ± 2,474 vs. 5,063 ± 3,811 ng/l; p < 0.001) compared with the diuretic group.

Aquapheresis Versus Intravenous Diuretics and Hospitalizations for Heart Failure (AVOID-HF) trial is the most recent multicenter randomized study that was performed a few years later. In this trial, 224 patients with ADHF were randomized to either adjustable UF (n = 110) or stepped pharmacologic therapy (PT) that included loop diuretics (n = 114) [35]. Similar to UNLOAD trial, patients with renal insufficiency with a serum creatinine ≥3.0 mg/dl were excluded. Both arms were placed on daily fluid and sodium restriction of 1.5 liters and 1.5 g/day respectively and continued on guideline-directed medical therapy for HF except that diuretics were withheld in the UF arm. The average duration of the UF was 80 ± 53 h with an average rate of 138 ± 47 ml/h. During the hospital stay, the UF group had greater total amount of fluid removed (18.7 vs. 14.0 liters; p = 0.015) and the net fluid loss (12.9 vs. 8.9 liters; p = 0.006) was compared to the diuretic group. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of weight loss at 72 h after randomization (10.7 ± 7.2 vs. 10.3 ± 9.2 kg; p = 0.343). It is of note that the AVOID-HF trial was designed to recruit 880 patients but had to be terminated earlier due to slower than expected recruitment process. In general, most studies of UF have shown the higher efficacy of this modality in removal of excess fluid and greater weight loss compared to conventional medical therapy.

Renal Function

Since diuretics, the mainstay of therapy of ADHF, can result in the deterioration of renal function via a number of mechanisms, and renal venous congestion has been shown to be associated with renal dysfunction, it was hoped that UF therapy could lead to conservation of renal function by virtue of avoiding diuretic use while relieving high venous pressure in the kidney. However, most studies did not show significant differences in changes in serum creatinine levels between UF and medical management groups while some even showed worse renal outcomes with UF. In a randomized controlled trial with a limited number of patients that was a sub-study of UNLOAD trial, Rogers et al. [36] meticulously measured renal function and renal plasma flow of the patients who were admitted to the hospital for ADHF. They reported similar impact of diuretics and UF on the measured parameters. In the continuous ultrafiltration for congestive heart failure (the CUORE trial), 56 patients with ADHF were randomized to receive standard medical therapy (n = 29) or UF (n = 27) [34]. At 6-month follow-up, serum creatinine in medical therapy group was 2.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.8 ± 0.6 mg/dl in the UF group (p = 0.69). In line with that finding, larger studies like UNLOAD and AVOID-HF also showed no significant difference between both groups in terms of changes in renal function [26,35]. In contrast to most other studies, the Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (CARRESS-HF) trial, that randomized 188 patients with ADHF and WRF to UF or a well-designed stepped PT found significant worsening of renal function in the UF group at 96 h manifested by an increase in blood urea nitrogen and creatinine concentration (12.54 ± 24.81 vs. 5.68 ± 18.29 mg/dl; p = 0.02 and +0.23 ± 0.70 mg/dl vs. -0.04 ± 0.53 mg/dl; p = 0.003, respectively) [32]. Interestingly, this unexpected finding was despite similar weight loss for both groups. It has been argued that the rate of fluid removal (200 ml/h) in the CARRESS-HF trial was not customized to the clinical characteristics (e.g. blood pressure) or the needs (e.g. degree of volume overload) of the patients while the medical therapy arm received a protocol-driven regimen that was meticulously adjusted based on the clinical and biological parameters such as renal function and urine output. However, it seems unlikely that the difference in customization of the therapeutic interventions could fully explain the negative impact of UF that was found in this trial.

In a recent study by Vazir et al. [37], the hemodynamic changes that take place during UF therapy were monitored and their impact on renal function was assessed. The investigators used serial measurement of central venous oxygen saturation (CVO2), a surrogate for cardiac output, in 20 UF treatments for 17 patients with ADHF and diuretic resistance. As the initial 2 l of fluid were removed, a rise in CVO2 and a fall in serum creatinine were observed. However, upon further fluid removal there was a fall in CVO2 which corresponded to WRF. These results suggest that changes in renal function could be related to transient changes in cardiac output that take place during UF and might remain unnoticed unless monitored carefully. The subclinical hemodynamic compromise is likely to result from imbalance between UF rate and the rate at which the intravascular volume can be refilled from the extravascular compartment. This study underscores the importance of customization of UF therapy. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Rehospitalization

HF has the highest rate of readmission among all medical conditions (i.e. 27% at 30 days) [38]. Frequent hospitalizations not only could affect the quality of life of the patients, they represent a substantial burden on healthcare expenditure [39]. Moreover, readmission rates for HF are increasingly regarded as a quality metric and are being used to define reimbursement rates and penalize underperforming facilities (i.e. readmission-based financial incentive/disincentive programs) [40]. In the field of UF, some of the studies have evaluated HF-related rehospitalization as a secondary endpoint. In general, they have found that UF use can be associated with lower incidence of readmission compared to medical therapy. For example, in the UNLOAD trial, the UF group had fewer patients rehospitalized for HF (16 of 89 (18%) vs. 28 of 87 (32%); p = 0.037), HF rehospitalization (0.22 ± 0.54 vs. 0.46 ± 0.76; p = 0.022), and rehospitalization days (1.4 ± 4.2 vs. 3.8 ± 8.5; p = 0.022) per patient at 90 days [26]. Similarly, in AVOID-HF trial, the UF arm had fewer days in the hospital due to HF readmissions (68 vs. 172 days; p = 0.029), lower rehospitalization rates due to a cardiovascular event (17 vs. 33 days; p = 0.037), fewer rehospitalization days due to a cardiovascular event (88 vs. 207 days; p = 0.018), and fewer patients rehospitalized for a cardiovascular event (15 vs. 27 days; p = 0.042) [35]. The key information on the major studies and their findings are summarized in table 3.

Adverse Events

Although aforementioned studies support the concept of using UF in the management of HF, the long-term outcome of this approach has not been explored extensively. While fluid removal is the primary goal of UF therapy, it can potentially be hazardous when done excessively. Aggressive fluid removal can lead to decreased effective blood volume, hypotension, renal hypoperfusion, renal azotemia, and possibly acute kidney injury necessitating renal replacement therapy. This often occurs from mismatch between UF rate and vascular refill. In fact, plasma refill rate can be used to guide the rate of volume extraction in patients with HF undergoing UF to avoid inadequate decongestion. Hemoconcentration, reflected by a rising hematocrit is an appropriate surrogate to indicate that the plasma refill rate has been exceeded by the rate of fluid extraction. It can be monitored continuously by using an in-line hematocrit sensor during UF therapy [41].

Like with any pumped blood technology, several other potential adverse events are of concern while using the UF machines. They include, but are not limited to air embolism, undetected disconnection of the blood lines leading to hemorrhage, blood leaks within the hemofilter, catheter infections, allergic reactions to the ethylene oxide sterilant used in some dialyzers and tubing sets. Though these complications are very rare, the nursing staff and any practitioner offering these treatments should be able to detect them early and prevent serious hazards.

Current evidence suggests that the rate of adverse events might be higher in patients receiving UF therapy compared to those managed conservatively. For example, in the AVOID-HF trial, a higher number of patients in the UF group experienced ‘serious adverse events deemed to be related to the study therapy' such as gastrointestinal bleeding and hematuria (due to anticoagulation) compared with those in the diuretic arm (14.6 vs. 5.4%; p = 0.03). Also, more patients in that group experienced an ‘adverse event of special interest', like symptomatic hypotension necessitating intervention, infections, or cardiac events (31 vs. 17%; p = 0.02) [35]. In line with the above findings, the CARRESS-HF trial also had more patients in the UF arm with serious adverse event, such as bleeding and catheter-related complications (72% for UF versus 57% for medical therapy; p = 0.03) [32]. The exact cause for these increased adverse effects remains elusive. It would be interesting to explore whether a number of fundamental changes in the practice of UF therapy such as increasing the involvement of nephrologists in the delivery of UF therapy through collaborative programs, training of physicians and staff as part of a comprehensive HF service, routine use of UF profiling, and real-time monitoring of intravascular volume would have a beneficial impact.

Sodium Removal

Multiple mechanisms that are involved in the development of ADHF lead to sodium retention which in turn, results in extracellular fluid expansion, volume overload and congestion. Therefore, any therapeutic modality with greater sodium extraction is expected to be advantageous in this setting. The findings of the Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan trial support this assumption. This was a randomized multi-center trial that included 4,133 patients hospitalized with HF who were randomly assigned to receive oral tolvaptan (thereby, promoting ‘sodium-free' water excretion) or placebo in addition to standard therapy. The composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF occurred in 42% of tolvaptan group and 40.2% placebo group patients (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI 0.95-1.14; p = 0.55). Secondary end points of cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular death or hospitalization, and worsening HF were also not different [42].

The fluid extracted through convective forces, as in UF therapy, is isotonic and so it is reasonable to assume that it removes a significantly higher amount of sodium compared with conventional PT, which typically results in hypotonic urine. But this opinion remains unproven and largely underexplored. In a small randomized pilot trial of target weight-guided therapy for ADHF, Chung et al. [43] compared the amount of volumes and sodium removed in 16 hospitalized patients. Total volume removed in both UF and diuretic arms was similar (11 and 10.7 liters, respectively). Sodium concentration was 138 ± 6 mEq/l in the ultrafiltrate, 85 ± 73 mEq/l in the diuretic group's urine, and 26 ± 23 mEq/l in the UF group's urine. Given the relevant associated volumes, the total amount of sodium removed was similar for both therapies (1,168 in diuretic group vs. 1,216 in UF group). A recent study by Verbrugge et al. [44] provides a useful insight into urinary sodium composition. Sixty one patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and worsening symptoms were treated with protocol-driven intravenous diuretic therapy until complete decongestion, assessed clinically and by echocardiography. Urinary sodium and chloride excretion significantly decreased, even after correction for diuretic dose (p = 0.040 and p = 0.004, respectively), leading to decreasing urinary concentrations with progressive decongestion, while their urine volume remained stable.

So far, no study has explicitly addressed this urinary sodium variability in patients treated with UF. However, it is conceivable that a similar decline in urinary sodium would occur with progressive decongestion and correction of the underlying total body sodium excess. The mechanism by which UF addresses volume overload is by removing fluid from the venous pool leading to interstitial decongestion and progressive intravascular volume contraction. This concept is supported by a recent study by Mentz et al. [45] on patients with ADHF that assessed the relationship between markers of RAAS activation (plasma renin activity and aldosterone) from baseline to 72 and 96 h of decongestion strategy. It was shown that UF resulted in greater increase in plasma renin activity than intravenous diuretic therapy. This could lead to enhanced proximal tubular sodium reabsorption and lowered urinary sodium offsetting the advantageous sodium-rich fluid extraction by UF therapy [46]. Therefore, the concept of enhanced sodium removal by UF compared to diuretics remains an assumption that has not yet been fully explored.

Conclusion

In summary, UF therapy for ADHF has the advantage of more effective decongestion, appears to be associated with improved secondary outcomes in the short-term (weeks to months after therapy), and does not appear to have a major clinically relevant adverse impact on renal function if started early. However, the long-term effects of this costly therapeutic option and its impact on the mortality remain largely unknown. Moreover, there is a signal of harm in terms of therapy-related adverse events for UF, and its previously observed beneficial effects could possibly dissipate if it is performed after development of renal dysfunction and cardiorenal syndrome. Currently available data come from studies that have commonly included patients with systolic HF. Indeed, none of the randomized controlled trials so far has compared HF patients with reduced ejection fraction with those who present with preserved ejection fraction.

In spite of limitations of the current studies and also the recent negative trials, UF seems to be useful in selected subset of patients who are fluid overloaded and experience diuretic resistance, those with a history of frequent HF readmissions and suboptimal decongestion, especially if applied early in the course of hospitalization. Therapy should be customized based on the clinical characteristics and fluid goal, and tailored to the needs of each patient. We opine that collaborative efforts between nephrology and cardiology expertise could prove beneficial in the practice of UF-based therapies for HF patients. In addition, future large-scale studies are needed to address the current gaps in literature and to determine the particular subset of patients who would most benefit from this expensive and labor-intensive therapy.

Disclosure Statement

No specific financial support was obtained for preparation of this article. The author has no potential conflicts of interest to declare with respect to this paper.


References

  1. Roger VL: Epidemiology of heart failure. Circ Res 2013;113:646-659.
  2. Gheorghiade M, Zannad F, Sopko G, Klein L, Piña IL, Konstam MA, Massie BM, Roland E, Targum S, Collins SP, Filippatos G, Tavazzi L; International Working Group on Acute Heart Failure Syndromes: Acute heart failure syndromes: current state and framework for future research. Circulation 2005;112:3958-3968.
  3. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, de Ferranti S, Després JP, Fullerton HJ, Howard VJ, Huffman MD, Judd SE, Kissela BM, Lackland DT, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Liu S, Mackey RH, Matchar DB, McGuire DK, Mohler ER 3rd, Moy CS, Muntner P, Mussolino ME, Nasir K, Neumar RW, Nichol G, Palaniappan L, Pandey DK, Reeves MJ, Rodriguez CJ, Sorlie PD, Stein J, Towfighi A, Turan TN, Virani SS, Willey JZ, Woo D, Yeh RW, Turner MB; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee: Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;131:e29-e322.
  4. Adams KF Jr, Fonarow GC, Emerman CL, LeJemtel TH, Costanzo MR, Abraham WT, Berkowitz RL, Galvao M, Horton DP; ADHERE Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators: Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure in the United States: rationale, design, and preliminary observations from the first 100,000 cases in the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE). Am Heart J 2005;149:209-216.
  5. Adamson PB, Magalski A, Braunschweig F, Böhm M, Reynolds D, Steinhaus D, Luby A, Linde C, Ryden L, Cremers B, Takle T, Bennett T: Ongoing right ventricular hemodynamics in heart failure: clinical value of measurements derived from an implantable monitoring system. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:565-571.
  6. Lucas C, Johnson W, Hamilton MA, Fonarow GC, Woo MA, Flavell CM, Creaser JA, Stevenson LW: Freedom from congestion predicts good survival despite previous class IV symptoms of heart failure. Am Heart J 2000;140:840-847.
  7. Gheorghiade M, Filippatos G: Reassessing treatment of acute heart failure syndromes: the ADHERE Registry. Eur Heart J Suppl 2005;7(suppl):B13-B19.
  8. Peacock WF, Costanzo MR, De Marco T, Lopatin M, Wynne J, Mills RM, Emerman CL; ADHERE Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators: Impact of intravenous loop diuretics on outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure: insights from the ADHERE registry. Cardiology 2009;113:12-19.
  9. Harjai KJ, Dinshaw HK, Nunez E, Shah M, Thompson H, Turgut T, Ventura HO: The prognostic implications of outpatient diuretic dose in heart failure. Int J Cardiol 1999;71:219-225.
  10. Lala A, McNulty SE, Mentz RJ, Dunlay SM, Vader JM, AbouEzzeddine OF, DeVore AD, Khazanie P, Redfield MM, Goldsmith SR, Bart BA, Anstrom KJ, Felker GM, Hernandez AF, Stevenson LW: Relief and recurrence of congestion during and after hospitalization for acute heart failure: insights from diuretic optimization strategy evaluation in acute decompensated heart failure (DOSE-AHF) and cardiorenal rescue study in acute decompensated heart failure (CARESS-HF). Circ Heart Fail 2015;8:741-748.
  11. Martens P, Nijst P, Mullens W: Current approach to decongestive therapy in acute heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2015;12:367-378.
  12. Damman K, Valente MA, Voors AA, O'Connor CM, van Veldhuisen DJ, Hillege HL: Renal impairment, worsening renal function, and outcome in patients with heart failure: an updated meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2014;35:455-469.
  13. Forman DE, Butler J, Wang Y, Abraham WT, O'Connor CM, Gottlieb SS, Loh E, Massie BM, Rich MW, Stevenson LW, Young JB, Krumholz HM: Incidence, predictors at admission, and impact of worsening renal function among patients hospitalized with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:61-67.
  14. Van der Meer P, Postmus D, Ponikowski P, Cleland JG, O'Connor CM, Cotter G, Metra M, Davison BA, Givertz MM, Mansoor GA, Teerlink JR, Massie BM, Hillege HL, Voors AA: The predictive value of short-term changes in hemoglobin concentration in patients presenting with acute decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1973-1981.
  15. Bellomo R, Ronco C: Acute renal failure in the intensive care unit: adequacy of dialysis and the case for continuous therapies. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1996;11:424-428.
  16. Camussi G, Ronco C, Montrucchio G, Piccoli G: Role of soluble mediators in sepsis and renal failure. Kidney Int Suppl 1998;66:S38-S42.
  17. Bellomo R, Ronco C: Blood purification in the intensive care unit: evolving concepts. World J Surg 2001;25:677-683.
  18. Cruz DN, Perazella MA, Bellomo R, Corradi V, de Cal M, Kuang D, Ocampo C, Nalesso F, Ronco C: Extracorporeal blood purification therapies for prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;48:361-371.
  19. Levin A, Warnock DG, Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV, Molitoris BA, Ronco C; Acute Kidney Injury Network Working Group: Improving outcomes from acute kidney injury: report of an initiative. Am J Kidney Dis 2007;50:1-4.
  20. Chen J, Normand SL, Wang Y, Krumholz HM: National and regional trends in heart failure hospitalization and mortality rates for Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-2008. JAMA 2011;306:1669-1678.
  21. Silverstein ME, Ford CA, Lysaght MJ, Henderson LW: Treatment of severe fluid overload by ultrafiltration. N Engl J Med 1974;291:747-751.
  22. Guazzi MD, Agostoni P, Perego B, Lauri G, Salvioni A, Giraldi F, Matturri M, Guazzi M, Marenzi G: Apparent paradox of neurohumoral axis inhibition after body fluid volume depletion in patients with chronic congestive heart failure and water retention. Br Heart J 1994;72:534-539.
  23. Agostoni PG, Marenzi GC, Pepi M, Doria E, Salvioni A, Perego G, Lauri G, Giraldi F, Grazi S, Guazzi MD: Isolated ultrafiltration in moderate congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;21:424-431.
  24. Marenzi G, Lauri G, Grazi M, Assanelli E, Campodonico J, Agostoni P: Circulatory response to fluid overload removal by extracorporeal ultrafiltration in refractory congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:963-968.
  25. Bart BA, Boyle A, Bank AJ, Anand I, Olivari MT, Kraemer M, Mackedanz S, Sobotka PA, Schollmeyer M, Goldsmith SR: Ultrafiltration versus usual care for hospitalized patients with heart failure: the relief for acutely fluid-overloaded patients with decompensated congestive heart failure (RAPID-CHF) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:2043-2046.
  26. Costanzo MR, Guglin ME, Saltzberg MT, Jessup ML, Bart BA, Teerlink JR, Jaski BE, Fang JC, Feller ED, Haas GJ, Anderson AS, Schollmeyer MP, Sobotka PA: Ultrafiltration versus intravenous diuretics for patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:675-683.
  27. Jaski BE, Romeo A, Ortiz B, Hoagland PM, Stone M, Glaser D, Thomas L, Walsh C, Smith SC Jr: Outcomes of volume-overloaded cardiovascular patients treated with ultrafiltration. J Card Fail 2008;14:515-520.
  28. Bartone C, Saghir S, Menon SG, Brosmer J, Kereiakes DJ, Mazur W, Chung ES: Comparison of ultrafiltration, nesiritide, and usual care in acute decompensated heart failure. Congest Heart Fail 2008;14:298-301.
  29. Giglioli C, Landi D, Cecchi E, Chiostri M, Gensini GF, Valente S, Ciaccheri M, Castelli G, Romano SM: Effects of ULTRAfiltration vs. DIureticS on clinical, biohumoral and haemodynamic variables in patients with deCOmpensated heart failure: the ULTRADISCO study. Eur J Heart Fail 2011;13:337-446.
  30. Dev S, Shirolkar SC, Stevens SR, Shaw LK, Adams PA, Felker GM, Rogers JG, O'Connor CM: Reduction in body weight but worsening renal function with late ultrafiltration for treatment of acute decompensated heart failure. Cardiology 2012;123:145-153.
  31. Patarroyo M, Wehbe E, Hanna M, Taylor DO, Starling RC, Demirjian S, Tang WH: Cardiorenal outcomes after slow continuous ultrafiltration therapy in refractory patients with advanced decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1906-1912.
  32. Bart BA, Goldsmith SR, Lee KL, Givertz MM, O'Connor CM, Bull DA, Redfield MM, Deswal A, Rouleau JL, LeWinter MM, Ofili EO, Stevenson LW, Semigran MJ, Felker GM, Chen HH, Hernandez AF, Anstrom KJ, McNulty SE, Velazquez EJ, Ibarra JC, Mascette AM, Braunwald E; Heart Failure Clinical Research Network: Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2296-2304.
  33. Jefferies JL, Bartone C, Menon S, Egnaczyk GF, O'Brien TM, Chung ES: Ultrafiltration in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: comparison with systolic heart failure patients. Circ Heart Fail 2013;6:733-739.
  34. Marenzi G, Muratori M, Cosentino ER, Rinaldi ER, Donghi V, Milazzo V, Ferramosca E, Borghi C, Santoro A, Agostoni P: Continuous ultrafiltration for congestive heart failure: the CUORE trial. J Card Fail 2014;20:9-17.
  35. Costanzo MR, Negoianu D, Jaski BE, Bart BA, Heywood JT, Anand IS, Smelser JM, Kaneshige AM, Chomsky DB, Adler ED, Haas GJ, Watts JA, Nabut JL, Schollmeyer MP, Fonarow GC: Aquapheresis versus intravenous diuretics and hospitalizations for heart failure. JACC Heart Fail 2016;4:95-105.
  36. Rogers HL, Marshall J, Bock J, Dowling TC, Feller E, Robinson S, Gottlieb SS: A randomized, controlled trial of the renal effects of ultrafiltration as compared to furosemide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. J Card Fail 2008;14:1-5.
  37. Vazir A, Simpkin VL, Marino P, Ludman A, Banya W, Tavazzi G, Bastin AJ, Trenfield S, Ghori A, Alexander PD, Griffiths M, Price S, Sharma R, Cowie MR: Association of haemodynamic changes measured by serial central venous saturation during ultrafiltration for acutely decompensated heart failure with diuretic resistance and change in renal function. Int J Cardiol 2016;220:618-622.
  38. Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA: Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1418-1428.
  39. Rosamond W, Flegal K, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N, Hailpern SM, Ho M, Howard V, Kissela B, Kittner S, Lloyd-Jones D, McDermott M, Meigs J, Moy C, Nichol G, O'Donnell C, Roger V, Sorlie P, Steinberger J, Thom T, Wilson M, Hong Y; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee: Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2008 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2008;117:e25-e146.
  40. Gilstrap LG, Joynt KE: Understanding the relationship between readmission and quality of hospital care in heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2014;11:347-353.
  41. Boyle A, Sobotka PA: Redefining the therapeutic objective in decompensated heart failure: hemoconcentration as a surrogate for plasma refill rate. J Card Fail 2006;12:247-249.
  42. Konstam MA, Gheorghiade M, Burnett JC Jr, Grinfeld L, Maggioni AP, Swedberg K, Udelson JE, Zannad F, Cook T, Ouyang J, Zimmer C, Orlandi C; Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) Investigators: Effects of oral tolvaptan in patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure: the EVEREST outcome trial. JAMA 2007;297:1319-1331.
  43. Chung ES, O'Brien TM, Menon S, Bartone C, Mazur W, Kereiakes DJ: A pilot study of target weight guided treatment in acute heart failure using ultrafiltration or usual care: effect on sodium removal. Korean Circ J 2014;44:156-161.
  44. Verbrugge FH, Nijst P, Dupont M, Penders J, Tang WH, Mullens W: Urinary composition during decongestive treatment in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Circ Heart Fail 2014;7:766-772.
  45. Mentz RJ, Stevens SR, DeVore AD, Lala A, Vader JM, AbouEzzeddine OF, Khazanie P, Redfield MM, Stevenson LW, O'Connor CM, Goldsmith SR, Bart BA, Anstrom KJ, Hernandez AF, Braunwald E, Felker GM: Decongestion strategies and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation in acute heart failure. JACC Heart Fail 2015;3:97-107.
  46. Kazory A: More efficient sodium removal by ultrafiltration compared to diuretics in acute heart failure; underexplored and overstated. Blood Purif 2016;42:278-281.
  47. Kazory A: Cardiorenal syndrome: ultrafiltration therapy for heart failure-trials and tribulations. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013;8:1816-1828.
  48. Kazory A: Ultrafiltration therapy for heart failure: balancing likely benefits against possible risks. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2016;11:1463-1471.

Author Contacts

Amir Kazory, MD

Division of Nephrology, Hypertension and Renal Transplantation

University of Florida, College of Medicine

1600 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32610-0224 (USA)

E-Mail amir.kazory@medicine.ufl.edu


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of In-Depth Review

Received: August 11, 2016
Accepted: September 26, 2016
Published online: November 16, 2016
Issue release date: March 2017

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0253-5068 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9735 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/BPU


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Roger VL: Epidemiology of heart failure. Circ Res 2013;113:646-659.
  2. Gheorghiade M, Zannad F, Sopko G, Klein L, Piña IL, Konstam MA, Massie BM, Roland E, Targum S, Collins SP, Filippatos G, Tavazzi L; International Working Group on Acute Heart Failure Syndromes: Acute heart failure syndromes: current state and framework for future research. Circulation 2005;112:3958-3968.
  3. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, Arnett DK, Blaha MJ, Cushman M, de Ferranti S, Després JP, Fullerton HJ, Howard VJ, Huffman MD, Judd SE, Kissela BM, Lackland DT, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Liu S, Mackey RH, Matchar DB, McGuire DK, Mohler ER 3rd, Moy CS, Muntner P, Mussolino ME, Nasir K, Neumar RW, Nichol G, Palaniappan L, Pandey DK, Reeves MJ, Rodriguez CJ, Sorlie PD, Stein J, Towfighi A, Turan TN, Virani SS, Willey JZ, Woo D, Yeh RW, Turner MB; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee: Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;131:e29-e322.
  4. Adams KF Jr, Fonarow GC, Emerman CL, LeJemtel TH, Costanzo MR, Abraham WT, Berkowitz RL, Galvao M, Horton DP; ADHERE Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators: Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure in the United States: rationale, design, and preliminary observations from the first 100,000 cases in the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE). Am Heart J 2005;149:209-216.
  5. Adamson PB, Magalski A, Braunschweig F, Böhm M, Reynolds D, Steinhaus D, Luby A, Linde C, Ryden L, Cremers B, Takle T, Bennett T: Ongoing right ventricular hemodynamics in heart failure: clinical value of measurements derived from an implantable monitoring system. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:565-571.
  6. Lucas C, Johnson W, Hamilton MA, Fonarow GC, Woo MA, Flavell CM, Creaser JA, Stevenson LW: Freedom from congestion predicts good survival despite previous class IV symptoms of heart failure. Am Heart J 2000;140:840-847.
  7. Gheorghiade M, Filippatos G: Reassessing treatment of acute heart failure syndromes: the ADHERE Registry. Eur Heart J Suppl 2005;7(suppl):B13-B19.
  8. Peacock WF, Costanzo MR, De Marco T, Lopatin M, Wynne J, Mills RM, Emerman CL; ADHERE Scientific Advisory Committee and Investigators: Impact of intravenous loop diuretics on outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure: insights from the ADHERE registry. Cardiology 2009;113:12-19.
  9. Harjai KJ, Dinshaw HK, Nunez E, Shah M, Thompson H, Turgut T, Ventura HO: The prognostic implications of outpatient diuretic dose in heart failure. Int J Cardiol 1999;71:219-225.
  10. Lala A, McNulty SE, Mentz RJ, Dunlay SM, Vader JM, AbouEzzeddine OF, DeVore AD, Khazanie P, Redfield MM, Goldsmith SR, Bart BA, Anstrom KJ, Felker GM, Hernandez AF, Stevenson LW: Relief and recurrence of congestion during and after hospitalization for acute heart failure: insights from diuretic optimization strategy evaluation in acute decompensated heart failure (DOSE-AHF) and cardiorenal rescue study in acute decompensated heart failure (CARESS-HF). Circ Heart Fail 2015;8:741-748.
  11. Martens P, Nijst P, Mullens W: Current approach to decongestive therapy in acute heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2015;12:367-378.
  12. Damman K, Valente MA, Voors AA, O'Connor CM, van Veldhuisen DJ, Hillege HL: Renal impairment, worsening renal function, and outcome in patients with heart failure: an updated meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2014;35:455-469.
  13. Forman DE, Butler J, Wang Y, Abraham WT, O'Connor CM, Gottlieb SS, Loh E, Massie BM, Rich MW, Stevenson LW, Young JB, Krumholz HM: Incidence, predictors at admission, and impact of worsening renal function among patients hospitalized with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:61-67.
  14. Van der Meer P, Postmus D, Ponikowski P, Cleland JG, O'Connor CM, Cotter G, Metra M, Davison BA, Givertz MM, Mansoor GA, Teerlink JR, Massie BM, Hillege HL, Voors AA: The predictive value of short-term changes in hemoglobin concentration in patients presenting with acute decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1973-1981.
  15. Bellomo R, Ronco C: Acute renal failure in the intensive care unit: adequacy of dialysis and the case for continuous therapies. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1996;11:424-428.
  16. Camussi G, Ronco C, Montrucchio G, Piccoli G: Role of soluble mediators in sepsis and renal failure. Kidney Int Suppl 1998;66:S38-S42.
  17. Bellomo R, Ronco C: Blood purification in the intensive care unit: evolving concepts. World J Surg 2001;25:677-683.
  18. Cruz DN, Perazella MA, Bellomo R, Corradi V, de Cal M, Kuang D, Ocampo C, Nalesso F, Ronco C: Extracorporeal blood purification therapies for prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis 2006;48:361-371.
  19. Levin A, Warnock DG, Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV, Molitoris BA, Ronco C; Acute Kidney Injury Network Working Group: Improving outcomes from acute kidney injury: report of an initiative. Am J Kidney Dis 2007;50:1-4.
  20. Chen J, Normand SL, Wang Y, Krumholz HM: National and regional trends in heart failure hospitalization and mortality rates for Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-2008. JAMA 2011;306:1669-1678.
  21. Silverstein ME, Ford CA, Lysaght MJ, Henderson LW: Treatment of severe fluid overload by ultrafiltration. N Engl J Med 1974;291:747-751.
  22. Guazzi MD, Agostoni P, Perego B, Lauri G, Salvioni A, Giraldi F, Matturri M, Guazzi M, Marenzi G: Apparent paradox of neurohumoral axis inhibition after body fluid volume depletion in patients with chronic congestive heart failure and water retention. Br Heart J 1994;72:534-539.
  23. Agostoni PG, Marenzi GC, Pepi M, Doria E, Salvioni A, Perego G, Lauri G, Giraldi F, Grazi S, Guazzi MD: Isolated ultrafiltration in moderate congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;21:424-431.
  24. Marenzi G, Lauri G, Grazi M, Assanelli E, Campodonico J, Agostoni P: Circulatory response to fluid overload removal by extracorporeal ultrafiltration in refractory congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:963-968.
  25. Bart BA, Boyle A, Bank AJ, Anand I, Olivari MT, Kraemer M, Mackedanz S, Sobotka PA, Schollmeyer M, Goldsmith SR: Ultrafiltration versus usual care for hospitalized patients with heart failure: the relief for acutely fluid-overloaded patients with decompensated congestive heart failure (RAPID-CHF) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:2043-2046.
  26. Costanzo MR, Guglin ME, Saltzberg MT, Jessup ML, Bart BA, Teerlink JR, Jaski BE, Fang JC, Feller ED, Haas GJ, Anderson AS, Schollmeyer MP, Sobotka PA: Ultrafiltration versus intravenous diuretics for patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:675-683.
  27. Jaski BE, Romeo A, Ortiz B, Hoagland PM, Stone M, Glaser D, Thomas L, Walsh C, Smith SC Jr: Outcomes of volume-overloaded cardiovascular patients treated with ultrafiltration. J Card Fail 2008;14:515-520.
  28. Bartone C, Saghir S, Menon SG, Brosmer J, Kereiakes DJ, Mazur W, Chung ES: Comparison of ultrafiltration, nesiritide, and usual care in acute decompensated heart failure. Congest Heart Fail 2008;14:298-301.
  29. Giglioli C, Landi D, Cecchi E, Chiostri M, Gensini GF, Valente S, Ciaccheri M, Castelli G, Romano SM: Effects of ULTRAfiltration vs. DIureticS on clinical, biohumoral and haemodynamic variables in patients with deCOmpensated heart failure: the ULTRADISCO study. Eur J Heart Fail 2011;13:337-446.
  30. Dev S, Shirolkar SC, Stevens SR, Shaw LK, Adams PA, Felker GM, Rogers JG, O'Connor CM: Reduction in body weight but worsening renal function with late ultrafiltration for treatment of acute decompensated heart failure. Cardiology 2012;123:145-153.
  31. Patarroyo M, Wehbe E, Hanna M, Taylor DO, Starling RC, Demirjian S, Tang WH: Cardiorenal outcomes after slow continuous ultrafiltration therapy in refractory patients with advanced decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:1906-1912.
  32. Bart BA, Goldsmith SR, Lee KL, Givertz MM, O'Connor CM, Bull DA, Redfield MM, Deswal A, Rouleau JL, LeWinter MM, Ofili EO, Stevenson LW, Semigran MJ, Felker GM, Chen HH, Hernandez AF, Anstrom KJ, McNulty SE, Velazquez EJ, Ibarra JC, Mascette AM, Braunwald E; Heart Failure Clinical Research Network: Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2296-2304.
  33. Jefferies JL, Bartone C, Menon S, Egnaczyk GF, O'Brien TM, Chung ES: Ultrafiltration in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: comparison with systolic heart failure patients. Circ Heart Fail 2013;6:733-739.
  34. Marenzi G, Muratori M, Cosentino ER, Rinaldi ER, Donghi V, Milazzo V, Ferramosca E, Borghi C, Santoro A, Agostoni P: Continuous ultrafiltration for congestive heart failure: the CUORE trial. J Card Fail 2014;20:9-17.
  35. Costanzo MR, Negoianu D, Jaski BE, Bart BA, Heywood JT, Anand IS, Smelser JM, Kaneshige AM, Chomsky DB, Adler ED, Haas GJ, Watts JA, Nabut JL, Schollmeyer MP, Fonarow GC: Aquapheresis versus intravenous diuretics and hospitalizations for heart failure. JACC Heart Fail 2016;4:95-105.
  36. Rogers HL, Marshall J, Bock J, Dowling TC, Feller E, Robinson S, Gottlieb SS: A randomized, controlled trial of the renal effects of ultrafiltration as compared to furosemide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. J Card Fail 2008;14:1-5.
  37. Vazir A, Simpkin VL, Marino P, Ludman A, Banya W, Tavazzi G, Bastin AJ, Trenfield S, Ghori A, Alexander PD, Griffiths M, Price S, Sharma R, Cowie MR: Association of haemodynamic changes measured by serial central venous saturation during ultrafiltration for acutely decompensated heart failure with diuretic resistance and change in renal function. Int J Cardiol 2016;220:618-622.
  38. Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA: Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1418-1428.
  39. Rosamond W, Flegal K, Furie K, Go A, Greenlund K, Haase N, Hailpern SM, Ho M, Howard V, Kissela B, Kittner S, Lloyd-Jones D, McDermott M, Meigs J, Moy C, Nichol G, O'Donnell C, Roger V, Sorlie P, Steinberger J, Thom T, Wilson M, Hong Y; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee: Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2008 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation 2008;117:e25-e146.
  40. Gilstrap LG, Joynt KE: Understanding the relationship between readmission and quality of hospital care in heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2014;11:347-353.
  41. Boyle A, Sobotka PA: Redefining the therapeutic objective in decompensated heart failure: hemoconcentration as a surrogate for plasma refill rate. J Card Fail 2006;12:247-249.
  42. Konstam MA, Gheorghiade M, Burnett JC Jr, Grinfeld L, Maggioni AP, Swedberg K, Udelson JE, Zannad F, Cook T, Ouyang J, Zimmer C, Orlandi C; Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) Investigators: Effects of oral tolvaptan in patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure: the EVEREST outcome trial. JAMA 2007;297:1319-1331.
  43. Chung ES, O'Brien TM, Menon S, Bartone C, Mazur W, Kereiakes DJ: A pilot study of target weight guided treatment in acute heart failure using ultrafiltration or usual care: effect on sodium removal. Korean Circ J 2014;44:156-161.
  44. Verbrugge FH, Nijst P, Dupont M, Penders J, Tang WH, Mullens W: Urinary composition during decongestive treatment in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Circ Heart Fail 2014;7:766-772.
  45. Mentz RJ, Stevens SR, DeVore AD, Lala A, Vader JM, AbouEzzeddine OF, Khazanie P, Redfield MM, Stevenson LW, O'Connor CM, Goldsmith SR, Bart BA, Anstrom KJ, Hernandez AF, Braunwald E, Felker GM: Decongestion strategies and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation in acute heart failure. JACC Heart Fail 2015;3:97-107.
  46. Kazory A: More efficient sodium removal by ultrafiltration compared to diuretics in acute heart failure; underexplored and overstated. Blood Purif 2016;42:278-281.
  47. Kazory A: Cardiorenal syndrome: ultrafiltration therapy for heart failure-trials and tribulations. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013;8:1816-1828.
  48. Kazory A: Ultrafiltration therapy for heart failure: balancing likely benefits against possible risks. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2016;11:1463-1471.
ppt logo Download Images (.pptx)


Figures
Thumbnail

Tables
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail