2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.07.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Worsening renal function during decongestion among patients hospitalized for heart failure: Findings from the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE) trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To further evaluate the safety of RASB use in those with renal insufficiency or worsening renal failure (WRF) in future studies, it will be important to concomitantly assess clinical congestion. As WRF may be observed in ADHF, adverse outcomes seem to be driven by those who remain congested . Thus, elucidating the cause of renal insufficiency in relation to congestion may distinguish the effects of RASB therapy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To further evaluate the safety of RASB use in those with renal insufficiency or worsening renal failure (WRF) in future studies, it will be important to concomitantly assess clinical congestion. As WRF may be observed in ADHF, adverse outcomes seem to be driven by those who remain congested . Thus, elucidating the cause of renal insufficiency in relation to congestion may distinguish the effects of RASB therapy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As WRF may be observed in ADHF, adverse outcomes seem to be driven by those who remain congested. 21,22 15 Whether continuing or initiating RASB therapy in those who are congested and normotensive with elevated creatinine warrants further investigation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Small fluctuations in serum creatinine levels in the setting of aggressive diuresis and/or institution of goal-directed therapies for HF likely represented benign hemodynamic changes rather than actual tubular injury or necrosis. Along the same lines, Fudim et al [5] showed that WRF did not carry the same negative prognostic value when effective decongestion at discharge was achieved, as compared to persistent congestion with WRF in a post hoc analysis of the Evaluation Study of congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE) trial across several methods of assessing congestion. Similar findings were also confirmed in a post hoc analysis of the Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A1 Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function (PROTECT) trial, wherein the HR for WRF on 30-day death or heart failure hospitalization was 1.49 (95% CI 1.06–2.09) in significantly congested patients compared to those without congestion [6].…”
Section: Decongestion In Acute Heart Failure: “Drier” Is Better In Tymentioning
confidence: 98%
“…11,12 The prognostic significance of such changes in renal function during treatment of decompensated heart failure has been debated in different studies. 13,14 Pathophysiology of acute kidney injury in decompensated heart failure (cardiorenal syndrome)…”
Section: Prevalence and Adverse Association Of Chronic Kidney Diseasementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is supported by studies demonstrating that congestion at discharge, irrespective of in hospital AKI, confers a worse prognosis than in those patients who have been adequately off-loaded of fluid even if they do have AKI at discharge. 14 The use of UF in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) held promise as a key method of decongestion after the UNLOAD trial showed improved outcomes and fewer readmissions with UF. 25 However, UF as a regular treatment fell out of favour after the CARESS-HF study showed a higher rise in serum creatinine (20.3 μmol/L vs −3.5 μmol/L; p=0.003) without a significant difference in weight reduction (12.6 kg vs 12.1 kg; p=0.58) or symptoms in the UF group compared to the pharmacologic therapy group.…”
Section: Cme: Renal Medicinementioning
confidence: 99%