Impact of renal dysfunction on the management and outcome of acute heart failure: results from the French prospective, multicentre, DeFSSICA survey

ObjectivesCardiorenal syndrome (CRS) is the combination of acute heart failure syndrome (AHF) and renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≤60 mL/min). Real-life data were used to compare the management and outcome of AHF with and without renal dysfunction.DesignProspective, multicentre.Settin...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2019-01, Vol.9 (1), p.e022776-e022776
Hauptverfasser: Dos Reis, Dominique, Fraticelli, Laurie, Bassand, Adrien, Manzo-Silberman, Stéphane, Peschanski, Nicolas, Charpentier, Sandrine, Elbaz, Meyer, Savary, Dominique, Bonnefoy-Cudraz, Eric, Laribi, Said, Henry, Patrick, Guerraoui, Abdallah, Tazarourte, Karim, Chouihed, Tahar, El Khoury, Carlos
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ObjectivesCardiorenal syndrome (CRS) is the combination of acute heart failure syndrome (AHF) and renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≤60 mL/min). Real-life data were used to compare the management and outcome of AHF with and without renal dysfunction.DesignProspective, multicentre.SettingTwenty-six academic, community and regional hospitals in France.Participants507 patients with AHF were assessed in two groups according to renal function: group 1 (patients with CRS (CrCl ≤60 mL/min): n=335) and group 2 (patients with AHF with normal renal function (CrCl >60 mL/min): n=172).ResultsDifferences were observed (group 1 vs group 2) at admission for the incidence of chronic heart failure (56.42% vs 47.67%), use of furosemide (60.9% vs 52.91%), insulin (15.52% vs 9.3%) and amiodarone (14.33% vs 4.65%); additionally, more patients in group 1 carried a defibrillator (4.78% vs 0%), had ≥2 hospitalisations in the last year (15.52% vs 5.81%) and were under the care of a cardiologist (72.24% vs 61.63%). Clinical signs were broadly similar in each group. Brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and BNP prohormone were higher in group 1 than group 2 (1157.5 vs 534 ng/L and 5120 vs 2513 ng/mL), and more patients in group 1 were positive for troponin (58.2% vs 44.19%), had cardiomegaly (51.04% vs 37.21%) and interstitial opacities (60.3% vs 47.67%). The only difference in emergency treatment was the use of nitrates, (higher in group 1 (21.9% vs 12.21%)). In-hospital mortality and the percentage of patients still hospitalised after 30 days were similar between groups, but the median stay was longer in group 1 (8 days vs 6 days).ConclusionsRenal impairment in AHF should not limit the use of loop diuretics and/or vasodilators, but early assessment of pulmonary congestion and close monitoring of the efficacy of conventional therapies is encouraged to allow rapid and appropriate implementation of alternative therapies if necessary.
ISSN:2044-6055
2044-6055
DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022776