Why the study?
Urinary markers reflect disease severity and can support heart failure management, yet they remain underutilized in clinical practice.
This expert consensus document outlines the pathophysiologic mechanisms, prognostic value, and clinical utility of urinary markers in the management of heart failure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May increase adoption of urinary markers in HF care; consolidates prognostic evidence into expert consensus guidance.
Several urinary markers reflect disease severity and have the potential to support the management of heart failure (HF). Collecting urine samples is easy and inexpensive, and urine sample composition can be altered not only by underlying kidney impairments (i.e. filtration barrier damage and tubular injury) but also via neurohormonal and inflammatory activation, ageing, comorbidities, other medical conditions and pharmacological interventions. For instance, urinary sodium may help to predict the response to loop diuretic therapy in acute HF, while albuminuria is used as a risk marker and therapeutic target for the progression of cardiovascular and kidney diseases in chronic HF, especially when accompanied by kidney disease. However, these markers remain underutilized in clinical practice. This review paper underscores the role of urinary markers in HF, with a specific focus on: (i) the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying urinary marker excretion, (ii) the prognostic values of urinary markers across diverse HF phenotypes and non-cardiovascular comorbidities (i.e. chronic kidney disease and diabetes), (iii) the impact of medical therapies on urinary markers, and (iv) existing knowledge gaps that challenge their implementation in clinical practice. The recommendations are aligned with current guidelines, evidence, and expert consensus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kobayashi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: