Key result
Ultrafiltration fails to reduce time to PCWP ≤18 mm Hg versus conventional diuretics in advanced HF.
Why the study?
Concerns exist regarding the safety and efficacy of ultrafiltration compared with conventional diuretic therapy in patients with advanced decompensated heart failure.
Does extracorporeal ultrafiltration reduce the time required to normalize pulmonary capillary wedge pressure compared to conventional diuretic therapy in patients with advanced decompensated heart failure?
Comparison
Extracorporeal ultrafiltration vs conventional diuretic therapy at admission
Design
Single-center prospective randomized controlled trial
Authors
Loading...
Ultrafiltration does not hasten PCWP normalization; challenges its use for rapid decongestion targets in advanced HF and leaves secondary benefits for further trials.
RCT (n=36)
randomized
No
Does extracorporeal ultrafiltration reduce the time required to normalize pulmonary capillary wedge pressure compared to conventional diuretic therapy in patients with advanced decompensated heart failure?
p-value: p=.08
In patients with advanced decompensated heart failure, ultrafiltration safely achieves greater volume removal and shorter hospital stay compared to conventional diuretics, despite not significantly reducing the time to normalize PCWP.
Hanna et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Advanced Decompensated Heart Failure (n=36). Extracorporeal Ultrafiltration vs. Conventional diuretic therapy was evaluated on Time required for pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) to be maintained at a value of ≤18 mm Hg for at least 4 consecutive hours (p=.08). Extracorporeal ultrafiltration did not significantly reduce the time to achieve a PCWP ≤18 mm Hg compared to conventional diuretic therapy in advanced heart failure (P=0.08).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: