Benefits of peritoneal ultrafiltration in HFpEF and HFrEF patients.
Diuretics
/ therapeutic use
Female
Heart Failure
/ physiopathology
Hemodiafiltration
/ methods
Hemofiltration
/ methods
Hospitalization
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists
/ therapeutic use
Peritoneal Dialysis
/ methods
Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory
/ methods
Stroke Volume
Treatment Outcome
Water-Electrolyte Imbalance
/ physiopathology
Cardiorenal syndrome
HFpEF
HFrEF
Heart failure
Peritoneal dialysis
Ultrafiltration
Journal
BMC nephrology
ISSN: 1471-2369
Titre abrégé: BMC Nephrol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967793
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 05 2020
14 05 2020
Historique:
received:
13
09
2019
accepted:
20
03
2020
entrez:
16
5
2020
pubmed:
16
5
2020
medline:
10
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Peritoneal ultrafiltration (pUF) in refractory heart failure (HF) reduces the incidence of decompensation episodes, which is of particular significance as each episode incrementally adds to mortality. Nevertheless, there are insufficient data about which patient cohort benefits the most. The objective of this study was to compare pUF in HFrEF and HFpEF, focusing on functional status, hospitalizations, surrogate endpoints and mortality. This study involves 143 patients, who could be classified as either HFpEF (n = 37, 25.9%) or HFrEF (n = 106, 74.1%) and who received pUF due to refractory HF. Baseline eGFR was similar in HFrEF (23.1 ± 10.6 mg/dl) and HFpEF (27.8 ± 13.2 mg/dl). Significant improvements in NYHA class were found in HFpEF (3.19 ± 0.61 to 2.72 ± 0.58, P < 0.001) and HFrEF (3.45 ± 0.52 to 2.71 ± 0.72, P < 0.001). CRP decreased in HFrEF (19.4 ± 17.6 mg/l to 13.7 ± 21.4 mg/l, P = 0.018) and HFpEF (33.7 ± 52.6 mg/l to 17.1 ± 26.3 mg/l, P = 0.004). Body weight was significantly reduced in HFrEF (81.1 ± 14.6 kg to 77.2 ± 15.6 kg, P = 0.003) and HFpEF (86.9 ± 15.8 kg to 83.1 ± 15.9 kg, P = 0.005). LVEF improved only in HFrEF (25.9 ± 6.82% to 30.4 ± 12.2%, P = 0.046). BCR decreased significantly in HFrEF and HFpEF (55.7 ± 21.9 to 34.3 ± 17.9 P > 0.001 and 50.5 ± 68.9 to 37.6 ± 21.9, P = 0.006). Number of hospitalization episodes as well as number of hospitalization days decreased significantly only in HFpEF (total number 2.88 ± 1.62 to 1.25 ± 1.45, P < 0.001, days 40.4 ± 31.7 to 18.3 ± 22.5 days, P = 0.005). pUF offers various benefits in HFpEF and HFrEF, but there are also substantial differences. In particular, hospitalization rates were found to be significantly reduced in HFpEF patients, indicating a greater medical and economical advantage. However, LVEF was only found to be improved in HFrEF patients. While pUF can now be regarded as an option to supplement classical HF therapy, further studies are desirable to obtain specifications about pUF in HFpEF, HFmEF and HFrEF patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Peritoneal ultrafiltration (pUF) in refractory heart failure (HF) reduces the incidence of decompensation episodes, which is of particular significance as each episode incrementally adds to mortality. Nevertheless, there are insufficient data about which patient cohort benefits the most. The objective of this study was to compare pUF in HFrEF and HFpEF, focusing on functional status, hospitalizations, surrogate endpoints and mortality.
METHODS
This study involves 143 patients, who could be classified as either HFpEF (n = 37, 25.9%) or HFrEF (n = 106, 74.1%) and who received pUF due to refractory HF.
RESULTS
Baseline eGFR was similar in HFrEF (23.1 ± 10.6 mg/dl) and HFpEF (27.8 ± 13.2 mg/dl). Significant improvements in NYHA class were found in HFpEF (3.19 ± 0.61 to 2.72 ± 0.58, P < 0.001) and HFrEF (3.45 ± 0.52 to 2.71 ± 0.72, P < 0.001). CRP decreased in HFrEF (19.4 ± 17.6 mg/l to 13.7 ± 21.4 mg/l, P = 0.018) and HFpEF (33.7 ± 52.6 mg/l to 17.1 ± 26.3 mg/l, P = 0.004). Body weight was significantly reduced in HFrEF (81.1 ± 14.6 kg to 77.2 ± 15.6 kg, P = 0.003) and HFpEF (86.9 ± 15.8 kg to 83.1 ± 15.9 kg, P = 0.005). LVEF improved only in HFrEF (25.9 ± 6.82% to 30.4 ± 12.2%, P = 0.046). BCR decreased significantly in HFrEF and HFpEF (55.7 ± 21.9 to 34.3 ± 17.9 P > 0.001 and 50.5 ± 68.9 to 37.6 ± 21.9, P = 0.006). Number of hospitalization episodes as well as number of hospitalization days decreased significantly only in HFpEF (total number 2.88 ± 1.62 to 1.25 ± 1.45, P < 0.001, days 40.4 ± 31.7 to 18.3 ± 22.5 days, P = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS
pUF offers various benefits in HFpEF and HFrEF, but there are also substantial differences. In particular, hospitalization rates were found to be significantly reduced in HFpEF patients, indicating a greater medical and economical advantage. However, LVEF was only found to be improved in HFrEF patients. While pUF can now be regarded as an option to supplement classical HF therapy, further studies are desirable to obtain specifications about pUF in HFpEF, HFmEF and HFrEF patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32410664
doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-01777-x
pii: 10.1186/s12882-020-01777-x
pmc: PMC7222460
doi:
Substances chimiques
Diuretics
0
Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
179Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nephrologie
ID : na
Pays : International
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Feb 13;49(6):675-83
pubmed: 17291932
Circ Heart Fail. 2016 Jun;9(6):
pubmed: 27301467
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2014 Feb;139(7):e1-8
pubmed: 24496900
Eur Heart J. 2016 Mar 21;37(12):942-54
pubmed: 26508169
Eur J Heart Fail. 2013 Jul;15(7):808-17
pubmed: 23537547
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Apr 14;53(15):e1-e90
pubmed: 19358937
J Card Fail. 2008 Feb;14(1):1-5
pubmed: 18226766
Am J Kidney Dis. 2013 Jun;61(6):975-83
pubmed: 23474006
Am J Cardiol. 2010 Feb 15;105(4):511-6
pubmed: 20152246
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Feb 17;53(7):582-588
pubmed: 19215832
J Trauma. 2000 May;48(5):874-7
pubmed: 10823530
Cardiorenal Med. 2015 Apr;5(2):145-56
pubmed: 25999963
Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128(16):1810-52
pubmed: 23741057
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Nov 4;52(19):1527-39
pubmed: 19007588
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 19;58(4):375-82
pubmed: 21757114
Am Heart J. 2007 Jun;153(6):1064-73
pubmed: 17540211
Eur Heart J. 2010 Mar;31(6):703-11
pubmed: 20037146
Circulation. 1996 Mar 1;93(5):841-2
pubmed: 8598070
ESC Heart Fail. 2019 Apr;6(2):271-279
pubmed: 30815994
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013 May 1;6(3):333-42
pubmed: 23685625
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200
pubmed: 27206819
Eur J Heart Fail. 2012 May;14(5):530-9
pubmed: 22447950
Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 Jan;16(1):103-11
pubmed: 24453099
Clin Kidney J. 2015 Apr;8(2):219-25
pubmed: 25815181
Kidney Int. 2005 Oct;68(4):1419-26
pubmed: 16164616
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Dec 6;46(11):2043-6
pubmed: 16325039
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Sep;10(3):173-80
pubmed: 16211206
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010 Feb;25(2):605-10
pubmed: 19783594
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Sep;2(5):356-64
pubmed: 19808623
Eur J Heart Fail. 2016 Dec;18(12):1508-1517
pubmed: 27427441
N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 13;367(24):2296-304
pubmed: 23131078
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Jul;27(7):2794-9
pubmed: 22492829
Eur J Heart Fail. 2016 Jun;18(6):613-25
pubmed: 27324686
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 May 17;67(19):2209-2212
pubmed: 27173031
Eur Heart J. 2015 Jun 14;36(23):1437-44
pubmed: 25838436
Circulation. 2010 Jun 15;121(23):2592-600
pubmed: 20547939
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2011 Sep;2(3):135-142
pubmed: 21966640
Circulation. 2000 Jul 11;102(2):203-10
pubmed: 10889132
Circulation. 2004 Mar 2;109(8):1004-9
pubmed: 14769700
Perit Dial Int. 2014 Jan-Feb;34(1):100-8
pubmed: 23994842
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Feb 17;53(7):589-596
pubmed: 19215833
Eur J Heart Fail. 2012 Mar;14(3):287-94
pubmed: 22357576
Am Heart J. 2015 Sep;170(3):471-82
pubmed: 26385030
J Card Fail. 2007 Aug;13(6):422-30
pubmed: 17675055
Nat Rev Nephrol. 2009 Nov;5(11):641-9
pubmed: 19786991
Kidney Int. 2011 Nov;80(9):970-977
pubmed: 21775972
Circ J. 2015;79(7):1520-5
pubmed: 25854814
Am J Kidney Dis. 2002 Feb;39(2 Suppl 1):S1-266
pubmed: 11904577
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015 Apr 7;10(4):620-9
pubmed: 25714960
Eur Heart J. 2012 Jul;33(14):1787-847
pubmed: 22611136