Kevin Damman

Co-morbidities in patients with heart failure: an analysis of the European Heart Failure Pilot Survey

Co‐morbidities frequently accompany heart failure (HF), contributing to increased morbidity and mortality, and an impairment of quality of life. We assessed the prevalence, determinants, regional variation, and prognostic implications of co‐morbidities in patients with chronic HF in Europe.

Recommendations on pre-hospital and early hospital management of acute heart failure : a consensus paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the European Society of Emergency Medicine and the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine - short version

Despite several critical steps forward in the management of chronic heart failure (CHF), the area of acute heart failure (AHF) has remained relatively stagnant. As stated in the updated ESC HF guidelines, clinicians responsible for managing patients with AHF must frequently make treatment decisions without adequate evidence, usually on the basis of expert opinion consensus.2 Specifically, the treatment of acute HF remains largely opinion-based with little good evidence to guide therapy. n nAcute heart failure is a syndrome in which emergency physicians, cardiologists, intensivists, nurses, and other healthcare providers have to cooperate to provide ‘rapid’ benefit to the patients. We hereby would like to underscore the wider experience grown in different settings of the area of intensive care on acute heart failure, actually larger and more composite than that got in specialized Care Units. The distillate of such different experiences is discussed and integrated in the present document. Hence, the authors of this consensus paper believe a common working definition of AHF covering all dimensions and modes of presentations has to be made, with the understanding that most AHF presentations are either acute decompensations of chronic underlying HF or the abrupt onset of dyspnoea associated with significantly elevated blood pressure. Secondly, recent data show that, much like acute coronary syndrome, AHF might have a ‘time to therapy’ concept. Accordingly, ‘pre-hospital’ management is considered a critical component of care. Thirdly, most patients with AHF have normal or high blood pressure at presentation, and are admitted with symptoms and/or signs of congestion. This is in contradiction to the presentation where low cardiac output leads to symptomatic hypotension and signs/symptoms of hypoperfusion, a circumstance that is relatively rare, present in coronary care unit/intensive care unit (CCU/ICU) but associated with a particularly poor outcome. Hence, it is important to note that appropriate therapy requires appropriate identification of the specific AHF phenotype.3 The aim of the current paper is not to replace guidelines, but, to provide contemporary perspective for early hospital management within the context of the most recent data and to provide guidance, based on expert opinions, to practicing physicians and other healthcare professionals (Figure 1). We believe that the experience accrued in the different settings from the emergency department through to the ICU/CCU is collectivel valuable in determining how best to manage the patients with AHF. Herein, a shortened version mainly including group recommendations is provided. Full version of the consensus paper is provided as Supplementary material online.

The kidney in heart failure: an update

Heart and kidney are closely related in the clinical syndrome of heart failure (HF). It is now sufficiently clear that renal dysfunction occurs frequently in all phenotypes of HF, and when present, it is associated with higher mortality and morbidity. While the pathophysiology is multifactorial, the most important factors are a reduced renal perfusion and venous congestion. Recent interest has focused on worsening renal function (WRF), a situation strongly related to mortality, but seemingly only when HF status deteriorates. Unfortunately, to date clinicians are unable to identify specifically those patients with a grim prognosis following WRF. Although much has been learned on cardiorenal interaction in HF, still more questions have been left unanswered. The coming decade should provide us with more dedicated epidemiologic, mechanistic, and controlled trials in HF patients with reduced renal function. An updated classification of the cardiorenal syndrome that incorporates recent evidence and points towards areas of interest and uncertainties, and areas where progress is needed could facilitate this process. Ultimately, this should lead to preventive and treatment strategies that can preserve renal function and associated outcome in patients with HF.

Pathophysiology of the cardiorenal syndromes: executive summary from the eleventh consensus conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI).

Cardiorenal syndromes (CRS) have been recently classified into five distinct entities, each with different major pathophysiologic mechanisms. CRS type 1 most commonly occurs in the setting of acutely decompensated heart failure where approximately 25% of patients develop a rise in serum creatinine and a reduction of urine output after the first several doses of intravenous diuretics. Altered cardiac and renal hemodynamics are believed to be the most important determinants of CRS type 1. CRS type 2 is the hastened progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the setting of chronic heart failure. Accelerated renal cell apoptosis and replacement fibrosis is considered to be the dominant mechanism. CRS type 3 is acutely decompensated heart failure after acute kidney injury from inflammatory, toxic, or ischemic insults. This syndrome is precipitated by salt and water overload, acute uremic myocyte dysfunction, and neurohormonal dysregulation. CRS type 4 is manifested by the acceleration of the progression of chronic heart failure in the setting of CKD. Cardiac myocyte dysfunction and fibrosis, so-called CKD cardiomyopathy, is believed to be the predominant pathophysiologic mechanism. Type 5 CRS is simultaneous acute cardiac and renal injury in the setting of an overwhelming systemic insult such as sepsis. In this scenario, the predominant pathophysiological disturbance is microcirculatory dysfunction as a result of acutely abnormal immune cell signaling, catecholamine cellular toxicity, and enzymatic activation which result in simultaneous organ injury often extending beyond both the heart and the kidneys. This paper will summarize these and other key findings from an international consensus conference on the spectrum of pathophysiologic mechanisms at work in the CRS.

Connecting heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and renal dysfunction: the role of endothelial dysfunction and inflammation

Renal dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common and is associated with increased mortality. Impaired renal function is also a risk factor for developing HFpEF. A new paradigm for HFpEF, proposing a sequence of events leading to myocardial remodelling and dysfunction in HFpEF, was recently introduced, involving inflammatory, microvascular, and cardiac components. The kidney might play a key role in this systemic process. Renal impairment causes metabolic and systemic derangements in circulating factors, causing an activated systemic inflammatory state and endothelial dysfunction, which may lead to cardiomyocyte stiffening, hypertrophy, and interstitial fibrosis via cross‐talk between the endothelium and cardiomyocyte compartments. Here, we review the role of endothelial dysfunction and inflammation to explain the link between renal dysfunction and HFpEF, which allows for identification of new early risk markers, prognostic factors, and unique targets for intervention.

Diuretic response in acute heart failure -pathophysiology, evaluation, and therapy

The administration of loop diuretics to achieve decongestion is the cornerstone of therapy for acute heart failure. Unfortunately, impaired response to diuretics is common in these patients and associated with adverse outcomes. Diuretic resistance is thought to result from a complex interplay between cardiac and renal dysfunction, and specific renal adaptation and escape mechanisms, such as neurohormonal activation and the braking phenomenon. However, our understanding of diuretic response in patients with acute heart failure is still limited and a uniform definition is lacking. Three objective methods to evaluate diuretic response have been introduced, which all suggest that diuretic response should be determined based on the effect of diuretic dose administered. Several strategies have been proposed to overcome diuretic resistance, including combination therapy and ultrafiltration, but prospective studies in patients who are truly unresponsive to diuretics are lacking. An enhanced understanding of diuretic response should ultimately lead to an improved, individualized approach to treating patients with acute heart failure.

Terminology and definition of changes renal function in heart failure

Renal impairment is one of the most powerful predictors of a poor clinical outcome in heart failure (HF). The risk of death in patients with reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is more than double that of patients without renal impairment. In addition, a decline in eGFR (irrespective of cause) is associated with a 60–80% higher mortality.1nnAlthough this change in eGFR is termed ‘worsening renal function’ (WRF) in most studies, there is great variation in the definition of what is meant by WRF across individual studies. Not only does the marker of interest (serum creatinine, cystatin C, or estimated GFR) vary, but so does the magnitude of change that is considered significant. Recently, the term ‘acute kidney injury’ (AKI), adopted from the nephrology literature, has been used to refer to increases in creatinine (or reductions in eGFR), although in many cases we believe this description has been used incorrectly. To complicate matters further, there are three different sets of criteria for AKI, namely RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO. To add to this confusion, both impairment in renal function at baseline and deterioration of renal function have been described as the so-called ‘cardiorenal syndrome’, even though there is no evidence to suggest that this is a pathophysiologically plausible entity.2 This cardiorenal interplay includes haemodynamic derangement, where decreased cardiac output and increased venous congestion lead to decreased renal perfusion pressure (reflecting arterial inflow and venous efflux) and decreased GFR. Increased renal venous pressure can also lead to renal interstitial hypertension, and possibly tubular hypertrophy, fibrosis, and tubular injury.2,3 Other factors that may influence cardiorenal interaction include the use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, …

Current evidence on treatment of patients with chronic systolic heart failure and renal insufficiency: Practical considerations from published data

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasingly prevalent in patients with chronic systolic heart failure. Therefore, evidence-based therapies are more and more being used in patients with some degree of renal dysfunction. However, most pivotal randomized clinical trials specifically excluded patients with (severe) renal dysfunction. The benefit of these evidence-based therapies in this high-risk patient group is largely unknown. This paper reviews data from randomized clinical trials in systolic heart failure and the interactions between baseline renal dysfunction and the effect of randomized treatment. It highlights that most evidence-based therapies show consistent outcome benefit in patients with moderate renal insufficiency (stage 3 CKD), whereas there are very scarce data on patients with severe (stage 4 to 5 CKD) renal insufficiency. If any, the outcome benefit might be even greater in stage 3 CKD compared with those with relatively preserved renal function. However, prescription of therapies should be individualized with consideration of possible harm and benefit, especially in those with stage 4 to 5 CKD where limited data are available.

Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin: ready for routine clinical use? An international perspective.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a challenge in terms of diagnosis and classification, its morbidity and mortality remaining high in the face of improving clinical protocols. Current clinical criteria use serum creatinine (sCr) and urine output to classify patients. Ongoing research has identified novel biomarkers that may improve the speed and accuracy of patient evaluation and prognostication, yet the route from basic science to clinical practice remains poorly paved. International evidence supporting the use of plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) as a valuable biomarker of AKI and chronic kidney disease (CKD) for a number of clinical scenarios was presented at the 31st International Vicenza Course on Critical Care Nephrology, and these data are detailed in this review. NGAL was shown to be highly useful alongside sCr, urinary output, and other biomarkers in assessing kidney injury; in patient stratification and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) selection in paediatric AKI; in assessing kidney injury in conjunction with sCr in sepsis; in guiding resuscitation protocols in conjunction with brain natriuretic peptide in burn patients; as an early biomarker of delayed graft function and calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity in kidney transplantation from extended criteria donors; as a biomarker of cardiovascular disease and heart failure, and in guiding CRRT selection in the intensive care unit and emergency department. While some applications require further clarification by way of larger randomised controlled trials, NGAL nevertheless demonstrates promise as an independent biological marker with the potential to improve earlier diagnosis and better assessment of risk groups in AKI and CKD. This is a critical element in formulating quick and accurate decisions for individual patients, both in acute scenarios and in long-term care, in order to improve patient prognostics and outcomes.

Pathogenesis of Cardiorenal Syndrome Type 1 in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Workgroup Statements from the Eleventh Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI)

Pathophysiological mechanisms of cardiorenal syndromes (CRS) types 1-5 are still sparsely characterized. In an attempt to address this issue, a consensus conference on CRS was held in Venice, Italy, in November 2012 under the auspices of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI). Working group 1 discussed monodirectional mechanisms of CRS type 1 which is characterized by a rapid worsening of cardiac function leading to acute kidney injury (AKI). Pre-conference we performed a systematic search and review of the available literature using a modified Delphi analysis. Hereby identified and in this review discussed questions were: (i) What are the predominant pathophysiologic mechanisms of CRS type 1 in acute decompensated heart failure? (ii) Could biomarker profiling identify pathomechanisms or hemodynamic phenotype of patients with CRS type 1? Could predictive biomarkers improve renal safety of therapy in CRS type 1? (iii) How do the timing, severity and duration relate to the mechanisms and outcomes of CRS type 1? In summary, after discussion and appraisal of the best available evidence, working group 1 makes consensus recommendations for future research on pathologic mechanisms of CRS type 1 and recommendations for clinical practice where treatment is in either proof or disproof of a mechanism.