Impact of natriuresis on worsening renal function during episodes of acute heart failure.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Worsening renal function (WRF) is a frequent complication in acute heart failure (AHF) with a controversial prognostic value. We aimed to study the usefulness of natriuresis to evaluate WRF. METHODS: We conducted an observational, prospective, multicenter study of patients with AHF who underwent a furosemide stress test. The patients were classified according to whether WRF was present or absent and according to the median natriuretic response. The main endpoint was the combination of mortality, rehospitalization due to HF, and heart transplant at 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six patients were enrolled, and WRF occurred in 60 (38.5%). The patients were divided into 4 groups: a) 47 (30.1%) no WRF/low UNa (UNa ≤ 109 mEq/L); b) 49 (31.4%) no WRF/high UNa (UNa > 109 mEq/L); c) 31 (19.9%) WRF/low UNa and d) 29 (18.6%) WRF/high UNa. The parameters of the WRF/low UNa group showed higher clinical severity and worse diuretic and decongestive response. The development of WRF was associated with a higher risk of the combined event (HR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.01-3.50; P = .046). When stratified by natriuretic response, WRF was associated with an increased risk of adverse events in patients with low natriuresis (HR, 2.28; 95%CI, 1.15-4.53; P = .019), but not in those with high natriuresis (HR, 1.18; 95%CI, 0.26-5.29; P = .826). CONCLUSIONS: Natriuresis could be a useful biomarker for interpreting and prognosticating WRF in AHF. WRF is associated with a higher risk of adverse events only in the context of low natriuresis.

Changes in the Inferior Vena Cava Are More Sensitive Than Venous Pressure During Fluid Removal: A Proof-of-Concept Study.

BACKGROUND: Congestion is central to the pathophysiology of heart failure (HF); thus, tracking congestion is crucial for the management of patients with HF. In this study we aimed to compare changes in inferior vena cava diameter (IVCD) with venous pressure following manipulation of volume status during ultrafiltration in patients with cardiac dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with stable hemodialysis and with systolic or diastolic dysfunction were studied. Central venous pressure (CVP) and peripheral venous pressure (PVP) were measured before and after hemodialysis. IVCD and PVP were measured simultaneously just before dialysis, 3 times during dialysis and immediately after dialysis. Changes in IVCD and PVP were compared at each timepoint with ultrafiltration volumes. We analyzed 30 hemodialysis sessions from 20 patients. PVP was validated as a surrogate for CVP. Mean ultrafiltration volume was 2102 ± 667 mL. IVCD discriminated better ultrafiltration volumes ≤ 500 mL or ≤ 750 mL than PVP (AUC 0.80 vs 0.62, and 0.80 vs 0.56, respectively; both P< 0.01). IVCD appeared to track better ultrafiltration volume (P< 0.01) and hemoconcentration (P< 0.05) than PVP. Changes in IVCD were of greater magnitude than those of PVP (average change from predialysis: -58 ± 30% vs -28 ± 21%; P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing ultrafiltration, changes in IVCD tracked changes in volume status better than venous pressure.