Ultrafiltration facilitated greater clinical and haemodynamic improvement and significantly decreased plasma aldosterone (0.24 vs. 0.86 nmol/L; P<0.001) compared with intravenous diuretics.
RCT (n=30)
randomly assigned
Does ultrafiltration improve clinical, biohumoral, and haemodynamic variables in patients with decompensated heart failure compared to intravenous diuretics?
In patients with decompensated heart failure, ultrafiltration improves haemodynamics and reduces aldosterone and NT-proBNP levels more effectively than intravenous diuretics.
Absolute Event Rate: 0.24% vs 0.86%
p-value: p=<0.001
AIMS: To evaluate the clinical, biohumoral, and haemodynamic effects of ultrafiltration vs. intravenous diuretics in patients with decompensated heart failure (HF). Signs and symptoms of volume overload are often present in these patients and standard therapy consists primarily of intravenous diuretics. Increasing evidence suggests that ultrafiltration can be an effective alternative treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty patients with decompensated HF were randomly assigned to diuretics or ultrafiltration. Haemodynamic variables, including several novel parameters indicating the overall performance of the cardiovascular system, were continuously assessed with the Pressure Recording Analytical Method before, during, at the end of treatment (EoT) and 36 h after completing treatment. Aldosterone and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) plasma levels were also measured. Patients treated with ultrafiltration had a more pronounced reduction in signs and symptoms of HF at EoT compared with baseline, and a significant decrease in plasma aldosterone (0.24 ± 0.25 vs. 0.86 ± 1.04 nmol/L; P < 0.001) and NT-proBNP levels (2823 ± 2474 vs. 5063 ± 3811 ng/L; P < 0.001) compared with the diuretic group. The ultrafiltration group showed a significant improvement (% of baseline) in a number of haemodynamic parameters, including stroke volume index (114.0 ± 11.7%; P < 0.001), cardiac index (123.0 ± 20.8%; P < 0.001), cardiac power output (114.0 ± 13.8%; P < 0.001), dP/dt(max) (129.5 ± 19.9%; P < 0.001), and cardiac cycle efficiency (0.24 ± 0.54 vs. -0.14 ± 0.50 units; P < 0.05), and a significant reduction in systemic vascular resistance 36 h after the treatment (88.0 ± 10.9%; P < 0.001), which was not observed in the diuretic group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced HF, ultrafiltration facilitates a greater clinical improvement compared with diuretic infusion by ameliorating haemodynamics (assessed using a minimally invasive methodology) without a marked increase in aldosterone or NT-proBNP levels.
Giglioli et al. (Sat,) conducted a rct in decompensated heart failure (n=30). Ultrafiltration vs. Intravenous diuretics was evaluated on Plasma aldosterone levels (nmol/L) (p=<0.001). Ultrafiltration facilitated greater clinical and haemodynamic improvement and significantly decreased plasma aldosterone (0.24 vs. 0.86 nmol/L; P<0.001) compared with intravenous diuretics.