Protocolized Natriuresis-Guided Decongestion Improves Diuretic Response: The Multicenter ENACT-HF Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of urinary sodium to guide diuretics in acute heart failure is recommended by experts and the most recent European Society of Cardiology guidelines. However, there are limited data to support this recommendation. The ENACT-HF study (Efficacy of a Standardized Diuretic Protocol in Acute Heart Failure) investigated the feasibility and efficacy of a standardized natriuresis-guided diuretic protocol in patients with acute heart failure and signs of volume overload. METHODS: ENACT-HF was an international, multicenter, open-label, pragmatic, 2-phase study, comparing the current standard of care of each center with a standardized diuretic protocol, including urinary sodium to guide therapy. The primary end point was natriuresis after 1 day. Secondary end points included cumulative natriuresis and diuresis after 2 days of treatment, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. All end points were adjusted for baseline differences between both treatment arms. RESULTS: Four hundred one patients from 29 centers in 18 countries worldwide were included in the study. The natriuresis after 1 day was significantly higher in the protocol arm compared with the standard of care arm (282 versus 174 mmol; adjusted mean ratio, 1.64; P<0.001). After 2 days, the natriuresis remained higher in the protocol arm (538 versus 365 mmol; adjusted mean ratio, 1.52; P<0.001), with a significantly higher diuresis (5776 versus 4381 mL; adjusted mean ratio, 1.33; P<0.001). The protocol arm had a shorter length of stay (5.8 versus 7.0 days; adjusted mean ratio, 0.87; P=0.036). In-hospital mortality was low and did not significantly differ between the 2 arms (1.4% versus 2.0%; P=0.852). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized natriuresis-guided diuretic protocol to guide decongestion in acute heart failure was feasible, safe, and resulted in higher natriuresis and diuresis, as well as a shorter length of stay.

Rationale and Design of the Efficacy of a Standardized Diuretic Protocol in Acute Heart Failure Study.

AIMS: Although acute heart failure (AHF) with volume overload is treated with loop diuretics, their dosing and type of administration are mainly based upon expert opinion. A recent position paper from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) proposed a step-wise pharmacologic diuretic strategy to increase the diuretic response and to achieve rapid decongestion. However, no study has evaluated this protocol prospectively. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Efficacy of a Standardized Diuretic Protocol in Acute Heart Failure (ENACT-HF) study is an international, multicentre, non-randomized, open-label, pragmatic study in AHF patients on chronic loop diuretic therapy, admitted to the hospital for intravenous loop diuretic therapy, aiming to enrol 500 patients. Inclusion criteria are as follows: at least one sign of volume overload (oedema, ascites, or pleural effusion), use ≥ 40 mg of furosemide or equivalent for >1 month, and a BNP > 250 ng/L or an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide > 1000 pg/L. The study is designed in two sequential phases. During Phase 1, all centres will treat consecutive patients according to the local standard of care. In the Phase 2 of the study, all centres will implement a standardized diuretic protocol in the next cohort of consecutive patients. The protocol is based upon the recently published HFA algorithm on diuretic use and starts with intravenous administration of two times the oral home dose. It includes early assessment of diuretic response with a spot urinary sodium measurement after 2 h and urine output after 6 h. Diuretics will be tailored further based upon these measurements. The study is powered for its primary endpoint of natriuresis after 1 day and will be able to detect a 15% difference with 80% power. Secondary endpoints are natriuresis and diuresis after 2 days, change in congestion score, change in weight, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: The ENACT-HF study will investigate whether a step-wise diuretic approach, based upon early assessment of urinary sodium and urine output as proposed by the HFA, is feasible and able to improve decongestion in AHF with volume overload.

Safety and Outcome of Percutaneous Drainage of Pericardial Effusions in Patients with Cancer.

Malignancy is a common cause of pericardial effusions. The findings, immediate safety and longer-term outcomes of pericardiocentesis are less well defined. We reviewed the cases of all patients with malignancy that underwent pericardiocentesis at our institution over a 10-year period. From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2016, 171 patients with cancer underwent echo-guided pericardiocentesis. A total of 53% were male with a mean age of 60 ± 15 years. The average volume drained was 485 (IQR 350 to 719) ml. The procedure was technically successful in 170/171 (99.4%) of patients without significant complications; there were no procedure-related deaths. A total of 20% had hemorrhagic, 48% had serosanguinous, and 31% serous pericardial effusions. The type of effusion was not associated with outcome. Cytology (measured in 164) was positive in 58% and only weakly related to outcome (median survival nine versus 18 weeks, p = 0.04). Per our institutional practice, a pericardial catheter was left in place until there were less than 50 ml of net drainage in 24 hours (average 3 ± 2 days). A total of 135 patients had metastatic carcinoma, 23 patients had lymphoma or chronic leukemia and 4 metastatic sarcoma. Patients with either lymphoma or chronic leukemia had better survival than those with carcinoma or sarcoma (median survival 102 vs 12 weeks, p < 0.0001) with a 46% vs 3% 5-year survival, p < 0.0001). Echoguided pericardiocentesis with extended pericardial catheter placement is safe and effective in cancer patients with pericardial effusions. However, overall outcomes are poor in cancer patients with pericardial effusions that required drainage, particularly in those with carcinoma or sarcoma.

Incidence and Management of Hemopericardium: Impact of Changing Trends in Invasive Cardiology.

OBJECTIVE: As invasive cardiovascular care has become increasingly complex, cardiac perforation leading to hemopericardium is a progressively prevalent complication. We sought to assess the frequency, etiology, and outcomes of hemorrhagic pericardial effusions managed through a nonsurgical echo-guided percutaneous strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a 10-year period (January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016), 1097 unique patients required pericardiocentesis for clinically important pericardial effusions. Of these 411 had drainage of hemorrhagic effusions (defined as a pericardial hemoglobin level >50% of serum hemoglobin or frank blood in the setting of cardiac perforation). Clinical characteristics, echocardiographic data, details of the procedure, and outcomes were determined. RESULTS: Median patient age was 67 years (interquartile range, 56-76 years), and 60% were men. The procedure was emergent in 83% and elective in 17%. The site of pericardiocentesis was determined by echo-guidance in all: 68% from the left para-apical region, 18% from the left or right parasternal areas, and 14% were subxyphoid. Half (n=215 [52%]) occurred after cardiac perforation with percutaneous interventional procedure (ablation, n=94; device lead implantation, n=65; percutaneous coronary intervention, n=22; other, n=34), whereas 30% followed cardiac or thoracic surgery. Pericardial fluid volume drained was 546±440 mL. In 94% of cases, echo-guided pericardiocentesis was the only treatment of the effusion needed, whereas definitive surgery was required in 25 (6%) cases for persistent bleeding or acute management of the underlying etiology. There was no procedural mortality. Late mortality was better for hemorrhagic effusions compared with a contemporary cohort with nonhemorrhagic effusions. CONCLUSION: Echocardiographic guidance allows rapid successful pericardiocentesis in the setting of hemopericardium related to microperforation with interventional procedures, malignancy, or pericarditis, with most not requiring surgical intervention. Surgery should remain the first-line approach for aortic dissection or myocardial rupture.