Why the study?
Does peritoneal ultrafiltration reduce hospitalizations and improve functional status in patients with refractory HFpEF and HFrEF?
Observational (n=143)
Yes
Does peritoneal ultrafiltration reduce hospitalizations and improve functional status in patients with refractory HFpEF and HFrEF?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.25% vs 2.88%
p-value: p=<0.001
Peritoneal ultrafiltration in refractory heart failure significantly reduces hospitalizations in HFpEF patients and improves ejection fraction in HFrEF patients, offering a viable supplementary therapy for cardiorenal syndrome.
May warrant consideration in refractory HFpEF; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Peritoneal ultrafiltration (pUF) in refractory heart failure (HF) reduces the incidence of decompensation episodes, which is of particular significance as each episode incrementally adds to mortality. Nevertheless, there are insufficient data about which patient cohort benefits the most. The objective of this study was to compare pUF in HFrEF and HFpEF, focusing on functional status, hospitalizations, surrogate endpoints and mortality. METHODS: This study involves 143 patients, who could be classified as either HFpEF (n = 37, 25.9%) or HFrEF (n = 106, 74.1%) and who received pUF due to refractory HF. RESULTS: Baseline eGFR was similar in HFrEF (23.1 ± 10.6 mg/dl) and HFpEF (27.8 ± 13.2 mg/dl). Significant improvements in NYHA class were found in HFpEF (3.19 ± 0.61 to 2.72 ± 0.58, P < 0.001) and HFrEF (3.45 ± 0.52 to 2.71 ± 0.72, P < 0.001). CRP decreased in HFrEF (19.4 ± 17.6 mg/l to 13.7 ± 21.4 mg/l, P = 0.018) and HFpEF (33.7 ± 52.6 mg/l to 17.1 ± 26.3 mg/l, P = 0.004). Body weight was significantly reduced in HFrEF (81.1 ± 14.6 kg to 77.2 ± 15.6 kg, P = 0.003) and HFpEF (86.9 ± 15.8 kg to 83.1 ± 15.9 kg, P = 0.005). LVEF improved only in HFrEF (25.9 ± 6.82% to 30.4 ± 12.2%, P = 0.046). BCR decreased significantly in HFrEF and HFpEF (55.7 ± 21.9 to 34.3 ± 17.9 P > 0.001 and 50.5 ± 68.9 to 37.6 ± 21.9, P = 0.006). Number of hospitalization episodes as well as number of hospitalization days decreased significantly only in HFpEF (total number 2.88 ± 1.62 to 1.25 ± 1.45, P < 0.001, days 40.4 ± 31.7 to 18.3 ± 22.5 days, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: pUF offers various benefits in HFpEF and HFrEF, but there are also substantial differences. In particular, hospitalization rates were found to be significantly reduced in HFpEF patients, indicating a greater medical and economical advantage. However, LVEF was only found to be improved in HFrEF patients. While pUF can now be regarded as an option to supplement classical HF therapy, further studies are desirable to obtain specifications about pUF in HFpEF, HFmEF and HFrEF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Großekettler et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Refractory heart failure (HFpEF and HFrEF) (n=143). Peritoneal ultrafiltration (pUF) vs. Baseline (pre-intervention) was evaluated on All-cause hospitalizations (episodes per year in HFpEF) (p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: