Kidney tubular injury does not appear to have an association with WRF in the context of aggressive diuresis of patients with acute heart failure. These findings reinforce the notion that the small to moderate deteriorations in renal function commonly encountered with aggressive diuresis are dissimilar from traditional causes of acute kidney injury.

Understanding the tubular location of diuretic resistance (DR) in heart failure (HF) is critical to developing targeted treatment strategies. Rodents chronically administered loop diuretics develop DR due to compensatory distal tubular sodium reabsorption, but whether this translates to human DR is unknown. We studied consecutive patients with HF (=128) receiving treatment with loop diuretics at the Yale Transitional Care Center. We measured the fractional excretion of lithium (FELi), the gold standard for assessment of proximal tubular and loop of Henle sodium handling, to assess sodium exit after loop diuretic administration and FENa to assess the net sodium excreted into the urine. The mean±SD prediuretic FELi was 16.2%±9.5%, similar to that in a control cohort without HF not receiving diuretics (=52; 16.6%±9.2%; =0.82). Administration of a median of 160 (interquartile range, 40-270) mg intravenous furosemide equivalents increased FELi by 12.6%±10.8% (<0.001) but increased FENa by only 4.8%±3.3%. Thus, only 34% (interquartile range, 15.6%-75.7%) of the estimated diuretic-induced sodium release did not undergo distal reabsorption. After controlling for urine diuretic levels, the increase in FELi explained only 6.4% of the increase in FENa (=0.002). These data suggest that administration of high-dose loop diuretics to patients with HF yields meaningful increases in sodium exit from the proximal tubule/loop of Henle. However, little of this sodium seems to reach the urine, consistent with findings from animal models that indicate that distal tubular compensatory sodium reabsorption is a primary driver of DR.

BackgroundIn acute decompensated heart failure, guidelines recommend increasing loop diuretic dose or adding a thiazide diuretic when diuresis is inadequate. We set out to determine the adverse events associated with a diuretic strategy relying on metolazone or high‐dose loop diuretics.Methods and ResultsPatients admitted to 3 hospitals using a common electronic medical record with a heart failure discharge diagnosis who received intravenous loop diuretics were studied in a propensity‐adjusted analysis of all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/L), hypokalemia (potassium <3.5 mEq/L) and worsening renal function (a ≥20% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate). Of 13 898 admissions, 1048 (7.5%) used adjuvant metolazone. Metolazone was strongly associated with hyponatremia, hypokalemia, and worsening renal function (P<0.0001 for all) with minimal effect attenuation following covariate and propensity adjustment. Metolazone remained associated with increased mortality after multivariate and propensity adjustment (hazard ratio=1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.04–1.39, P=0.01). High‐dose loop diuretics were associated with hypokalemia and hyponatremia (P<0.002) but only worsening renal function retained significance (P<0.001) after propensity adjustment. High‐dose loop diuretics were not associated with reduced survival after multivariate and propensity adjustment (hazard ratio=0.97 per 100 mg of IV furosemide, 95% confidence interval 0.90–1.06, P=0.52).ConclusionsDuring acute decompensated heart failure, metolazone was independently associated with hypokalemia, hyponatremia, worsening renal function and increased mortality after controlling for the propensity to receive metolazone and baseline characteristics. However, under the same experimental conditions, high‐dose loop diuretics were not associated with hypokalemia, hyponatremia, or reduced survival. The current findings suggest that until randomized control trial data prove otherwise, uptitration of loop diuretics may be a preferred strategy over routine early addition of thiazide type diuretics when diuresis is inadequate.

Background:The relationship between intensive volume removal in ADHF patients with preexisting WRF and renal tubular injury, post-discharge renal function, and clinical outcomes is unknown. Methods and Results:We used data from the multicenter CARRESS-HF trial that randomized patients with ADHF and pre-existing WRF to intensive volume removal with stepped pharmacologic therapy (SPT) or fixed rate ultrafiltration (UF). Patients in the urinary renal tubular injury biomarker sub-study (NAG, KIM-1, and NGAL) were evaluated (N=105). The severity of pre-randomization WRF was unrelated to baseline renal tubular injury biomarkers (r=0.14, P=0.17). During randomized intensive volume removal, creatinine further worsened in 53% of patients. Despite a small to moderate magnitude increase in creatinine in most of these patients, post-randomization WRF was strongly associated with worsening in renal tubular injury

Background Infection with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been associated with a hypercoagulable state. Emerging data from China and Europe have consistently shown an increased incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to identify the VTE incidence and early predictors of VTE at our high-volume tertiary care center. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of 147 patients who had been admitted to Temple University Hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from April 1, 2020 to April 27, 2020. We first identified the VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]) incidence in our cohort. The VTE and no-VTE groups were compared by univariable analysis for demographics, comorbidities, laboratory data, and treatment outcomes. Subsequently, multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the early predictors of VTE. Results The 147 patients (20.9% of all admissions) admitted to a designated COVID-19 unit at Temple University Hospital with a high clinical suspicion of acute VTE had undergone testing for VTE using computed tomography pulmonary angiography and/or extremity venous duplex ultrasonography. The overall incidence of VTE was 17% (25 of 147). Of the 25 patients, 16 had had acute PE, 14 had had acute DVT, and 5 had had both PE and DVT. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio, 3.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-9.55) and the admission D-dimer level ≥1500 ng/mL (adjusted odds ratio, 3.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-9.78) were independent markers associated with VTE. The all-cause mortality in the VTE group was greater than that in the non-VTE group (48% vs 22%; P = .007). Conclusion Our study represents one of the earliest reported from the United States on the incidence rate of VTE in patients with COVID-19. Patients with a high clinical suspicion and the identified risk factors (invasive mechanical ventilation, admission D-dimer level ≥1500 ng/mL) should be considered for early VTE testing. We did not screen all patients admitted for VTE; therefore, the true incidence of VTE could have been underestimated. Our findings require confirmation in future prospective studies.