Why the study?
The treatment of congestion in HF remains challenging despite available therapies, prompting analysis of different diuretic combinations and associated clinical profiles in decompensated HF.
What are the clinical phenotypes of patients with acute heart failure based on the diuretic combination required for stabilization?
What are the clinical phenotypes of patients with acute heart failure based on the diuretic combination required for stabilization?
The complexity of diuretic therapy required for decongestion in acute heart failure identifies distinct clinical phenotypes with varying degrees of renal dysfunction and ventricular impairment.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Diuretic combo data in decompensated HF remain hypothesis-generating; randomized trials needed before guiding practice.
BACKGROUND: The treatment of congestion in heart failure (HF) is a challenge despite the therapeutic arsenal available. The aim of this study was to analyze different combinations of diuretics used to resolve congestion in patients admitted for decompensated HF and to define clinical profiles according to these treatments. METHODS: Single-center study of 1,559 patients admitted for decompensated HF was done between 2016 and 2020. Patients were grouped according to the diuretic combination that led to clinical stabilization and discharge from the hospital: (1) Loop diuretic. (2) Loop diuretic + distal tubule (antialdosterone ± thiazides). (3) Loop diuretic + distal + proximal tubule (acetazolamide ± SGLT2 inhibitor). (4) Loop diuretic + distal tubule + collecting duct (tolvaptan). (5) Loop diuretic + distal + proximal + collecting duct. Based on these diuretic combinations, profiles with clinical, analytical, and echocardiographic differences were established. RESULTS: There were more previous hospitalizations in groups 4 and 5 (p = 0.001) with a predominance of pulmonary congestion in profiles 1 and 2 and systemic congestion in 3, 4, and 5. Creatinine and CA125 were higher in profiles 4 and 5 (p = 0.01 and p = 0.0001), with no differences in NT-proBNP. Profiles 4 and 5 had a higher proportion of dilatation and depression of right ventricular (p = 0.0001) and left ventricular (p = 0.003) function. Diuretic therapy-defined groups showed difference in clinical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The diuretic treatment used identifies five clinical profiles according to the degree of congestion, renal function, CA125, and right ventricular functionality. These profiles would guide the best diuretic treatment on admission.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
López‐Vilella et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: