Gregory F. Egnaczyk

Ultrafiltration in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Comparison with Systolic Heart Failure Patients

Background—Ultrafiltration (UF) is a widely used technology for inpatient management of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with volume overload. However, the safety and efficacy of UF in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFPEF]) need further clarification. We hypothesized that UF could be used in this population with outcomes similar to acute decompensated heart failure patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (HFLEF). Methods and Results—Prospective evaluation was performed on 2 patient cohorts admitted to a single institution for acute decompensated heart failure and treated with UF: HFLEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ⩽40%; n=87) and HFPEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%; n=97). Selected demographic and clinical data were compared, including clinical and serological information, as well as in-hospital and 90-day postdischarge mortality. HFPEF patients were more likely to be women, have higher blood pressures, and less likely to have ischemic heart disease. There were no significant differences in total weight loss (7.7% in HFLEF and 7.0% in HFPEF), electrolyte and renal disturbances, or in-hospital mortality (3.4% in HFLEF and 3.3% in HFPEF) between the 2 groups. Mortality at 90 days tended to be greater in HFLEF (24.1%) than in HFPEF (15.5%). Conclusions—Therapeutic responses in patients with HFPEF meeting current indication for UF are similar to those with HFLEF. Larger studies are warranted to better characterize acute heart failure management with UF in this population.Background— Ultrafiltration (UF) is a widely used technology for inpatient management of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with volume overload. However, the safety and efficacy of UF in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFPEF]) need further clarification. We hypothesized that UF could be used in this population with outcomes similar to acute decompensated heart failure patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (HFLEF). Methods and Results— Prospective evaluation was performed on 2 patient cohorts admitted to a single institution for acute decompensated heart failure and treated with UF: HFLEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%; n=87) and HFPEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%; n=97). Selected demographic and clinical data were compared, including clinical and serological information, as well as in-hospital and 90-day postdischarge mortality. HFPEF patients were more likely to be women, have higher blood pressures, and less likely to have ischemic heart disease. There were no significant differences in total weight loss (7.7% in HFLEF and 7.0% in HFPEF), electrolyte and renal disturbances, or in-hospital mortality (3.4% in HFLEF and 3.3% in HFPEF) between the 2 groups. Mortality at 90 days tended to be greater in HFLEF (24.1%) than in HFPEF (15.5%). Conclusions— Therapeutic responses in patients with HFPEF meeting current indication for UF are similar to those with HFLEF. Larger studies are warranted to better characterize acute heart failure management with UF in this population.

Tolvaptan in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure Rationale and Design of the TACTICS and the SECRET of CHF Trials

Congestion is a primary reason for hospitalization in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). Despite inpatient diuretics and vasodilators targeting decongestion, persistent congestion is present in many AHF patients at discharge and more severe congestion is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Moreover, hospitalized AHF patients may have renal insufficiency, hyponatremia, or an inadequate response to traditional diuretic therapy despite dose escalation. Current alternative treatment strategies to relieve congestion, such as ultrafiltration, may also result in renal dysfunction to a greater extent than medical therapy in certain AHF populations. Truly novel approaches to volume management would be advantageous to improve dyspnea and clinical outcomes while minimizing the risks of worsening renal function and electrolyte abnormalities. One effective new strategy may be utilization of aquaretic vasopressin antagonists. A member of this class, the oral vasopressin-2 receptor antagonist tolvaptan, provides benefits related to decongestion and symptom relief in AHF patients. Tolvaptan may allow for less intensification of loop diuretic therapy and a lower incidence of worsening renal function during decongestion. In this article, we summarize evidence for decongestion benefits with tolvaptan in AHF and describe the design of the Targeting Acute Congestion With Tolvaptan in Congestive Heart Failure Study (TACTICS) and Study to Evaluate Challenging Responses to Therapy in Congestive Heart Failure (SECRET of CHF) trials.

Ultrafiltration in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background—Ultrafiltration (UF) is a widely used technology for inpatient management of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with volume overload. However, the safety and efficacy of UF in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFPEF]) need further clarification. We hypothesized that UF could be used in this population with outcomes similar to acute decompensated heart failure patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (HFLEF). Methods and Results—Prospective evaluation was performed on 2 patient cohorts admitted to a single institution for acute decompensated heart failure and treated with UF: HFLEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ⩽40%; n=87) and HFPEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%; n=97). Selected demographic and clinical data were compared, including clinical and serological information, as well as in-hospital and 90-day postdischarge mortality. HFPEF patients were more likely to be women, have higher blood pressures, and less likely to have ischemic heart disease. There were no significant differences in total weight loss (7.7% in HFLEF and 7.0% in HFPEF), electrolyte and renal disturbances, or in-hospital mortality (3.4% in HFLEF and 3.3% in HFPEF) between the 2 groups. Mortality at 90 days tended to be greater in HFLEF (24.1%) than in HFPEF (15.5%). Conclusions—Therapeutic responses in patients with HFPEF meeting current indication for UF are similar to those with HFLEF. Larger studies are warranted to better characterize acute heart failure management with UF in this population.Background— Ultrafiltration (UF) is a widely used technology for inpatient management of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with volume overload. However, the safety and efficacy of UF in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFPEF]) need further clarification. We hypothesized that UF could be used in this population with outcomes similar to acute decompensated heart failure patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (HFLEF). Methods and Results— Prospective evaluation was performed on 2 patient cohorts admitted to a single institution for acute decompensated heart failure and treated with UF: HFLEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%; n=87) and HFPEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%; n=97). Selected demographic and clinical data were compared, including clinical and serological information, as well as in-hospital and 90-day postdischarge mortality. HFPEF patients were more likely to be women, have higher blood pressures, and less likely to have ischemic heart disease. There were no significant differences in total weight loss (7.7% in HFLEF and 7.0% in HFPEF), electrolyte and renal disturbances, or in-hospital mortality (3.4% in HFLEF and 3.3% in HFPEF) between the 2 groups. Mortality at 90 days tended to be greater in HFLEF (24.1%) than in HFPEF (15.5%). Conclusions— Therapeutic responses in patients with HFPEF meeting current indication for UF are similar to those with HFLEF. Larger studies are warranted to better characterize acute heart failure management with UF in this population.

Clinical Trials in Mechanical Circulatory Support

Recent advances in mechanically assisted circulation, including refinement of patient selection criteria and enhancements in device design, have been associated with improvements in survival, functionality and quality of life as well as reductions in adverse events. Novel and innovative trial design, methodology and endpoints have been utilized in the development of the cumulative database supporting the role of ventricular assist devices for the management of patients with advanced heart failure. The rapid and significant improvements in patient-centric outcomes support the expansion of this technology into less moribund populations where the potential benefits may be even more robust.

Ultrafiltration in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection FractionClinical Perspective

Background—Ultrafiltration (UF) is a widely used technology for inpatient management of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with volume overload. However, the safety and efficacy of UF in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFPEF]) need further clarification. We hypothesized that UF could be used in this population with outcomes similar to acute decompensated heart failure patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (HFLEF). Methods and Results—Prospective evaluation was performed on 2 patient cohorts admitted to a single institution for acute decompensated heart failure and treated with UF: HFLEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ⩽40%; n=87) and HFPEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%; n=97). Selected demographic and clinical data were compared, including clinical and serological information, as well as in-hospital and 90-day postdischarge mortality. HFPEF patients were more likely to be women, have higher blood pressures, and less likely to have ischemic heart disease. There were no significant differences in total weight loss (7.7% in HFLEF and 7.0% in HFPEF), electrolyte and renal disturbances, or in-hospital mortality (3.4% in HFLEF and 3.3% in HFPEF) between the 2 groups. Mortality at 90 days tended to be greater in HFLEF (24.1%) than in HFPEF (15.5%). Conclusions—Therapeutic responses in patients with HFPEF meeting current indication for UF are similar to those with HFLEF. Larger studies are warranted to better characterize acute heart failure management with UF in this population.Background— Ultrafiltration (UF) is a widely used technology for inpatient management of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with volume overload. However, the safety and efficacy of UF in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFPEF]) need further clarification. We hypothesized that UF could be used in this population with outcomes similar to acute decompensated heart failure patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (HFLEF). Methods and Results— Prospective evaluation was performed on 2 patient cohorts admitted to a single institution for acute decompensated heart failure and treated with UF: HFLEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%; n=87) and HFPEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%; n=97). Selected demographic and clinical data were compared, including clinical and serological information, as well as in-hospital and 90-day postdischarge mortality. HFPEF patients were more likely to be women, have higher blood pressures, and less likely to have ischemic heart disease. There were no significant differences in total weight loss (7.7% in HFLEF and 7.0% in HFPEF), electrolyte and renal disturbances, or in-hospital mortality (3.4% in HFLEF and 3.3% in HFPEF) between the 2 groups. Mortality at 90 days tended to be greater in HFLEF (24.1%) than in HFPEF (15.5%). Conclusions— Therapeutic responses in patients with HFPEF meeting current indication for UF are similar to those with HFLEF. Larger studies are warranted to better characterize acute heart failure management with UF in this population.

Ultrafiltration in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection FractionClinical Perspective: Comparison With Systolic Heart Failure Patients

Background—Ultrafiltration (UF) is a widely used technology for inpatient management of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with volume overload. However, the safety and efficacy of UF in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFPEF]) need further clarification. We hypothesized that UF could be used in this population with outcomes similar to acute decompensated heart failure patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (HFLEF). Methods and Results—Prospective evaluation was performed on 2 patient cohorts admitted to a single institution for acute decompensated heart failure and treated with UF: HFLEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ⩽40%; n=87) and HFPEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%; n=97). Selected demographic and clinical data were compared, including clinical and serological information, as well as in-hospital and 90-day postdischarge mortality. HFPEF patients were more likely to be women, have higher blood pressures, and less likely to have ischemic heart disease. There were no significant differences in total weight loss (7.7% in HFLEF and 7.0% in HFPEF), electrolyte and renal disturbances, or in-hospital mortality (3.4% in HFLEF and 3.3% in HFPEF) between the 2 groups. Mortality at 90 days tended to be greater in HFLEF (24.1%) than in HFPEF (15.5%). Conclusions—Therapeutic responses in patients with HFPEF meeting current indication for UF are similar to those with HFLEF. Larger studies are warranted to better characterize acute heart failure management with UF in this population.Background— Ultrafiltration (UF) is a widely used technology for inpatient management of acute decompensated heart failure in patients with volume overload. However, the safety and efficacy of UF in patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFPEF]) need further clarification. We hypothesized that UF could be used in this population with outcomes similar to acute decompensated heart failure patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (HFLEF). Methods and Results— Prospective evaluation was performed on 2 patient cohorts admitted to a single institution for acute decompensated heart failure and treated with UF: HFLEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%; n=87) and HFPEF (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%; n=97). Selected demographic and clinical data were compared, including clinical and serological information, as well as in-hospital and 90-day postdischarge mortality. HFPEF patients were more likely to be women, have higher blood pressures, and less likely to have ischemic heart disease. There were no significant differences in total weight loss (7.7% in HFLEF and 7.0% in HFPEF), electrolyte and renal disturbances, or in-hospital mortality (3.4% in HFLEF and 3.3% in HFPEF) between the 2 groups. Mortality at 90 days tended to be greater in HFLEF (24.1%) than in HFPEF (15.5%). Conclusions— Therapeutic responses in patients with HFPEF meeting current indication for UF are similar to those with HFLEF. Larger studies are warranted to better characterize acute heart failure management with UF in this population.