Natriuretic peptide B plasma concentration increases in the first 12 h of pulmonary edema recovery.

BACKGROUND: According to guidelines, single determination of B-type Natriuretic peptide (BNP) should be used for distinguishing between cardiac and non-cardiac acute dyspnea at the emergency room. BNP measurement is also recommended before hospital discharge in patients hospitalized for heart failure to assess prognosis and to evaluate treatment efficacy. In acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, BNP is measured using a single BNP determination, but the temporal behavior of BNP during pulmonary edema recovery is unknown. METHODS: Fifty chronic low ejection fraction (<40%) heart failure patients (age 77 ±â€¯9 years, 17 M-33F) admitted for acute pulmonary edema were studied. Patients were grouped according to 50% dyspnea recovery time into 3 groups: ≤30 min (n = 14), 30 to 60 min (n = 19), and > 60 min (n = 17). BNP was measured at arrival and 4, 8, 12 and 24 h afterwards. RESULTS: At arrival, BNP was elevated in all patients without significant difference among groups. In the entire population, BNP median and interquartile range value were 791 (528-1327) pg/ml, 785(559-1299) pg/ml, 1014(761-1573) pg/ml, 1049(784-1412) pg/ml, 805(497-1271) pg/ml at arrival and 4, 8, 12 and 24 h afterwards, respectively, showing higher values at 8 and 12 h. This peculiar temporal behavior of BNP was shared by all study groups. Patients with the longest edema resolution showed the highest BNP level 8 and 12 h after admission. CONCLUSIONS: In acute pulmonary edema, BNP increased up to 12 h after emergency admission regardless of dyspnea recovery time, making BNP quantitative meaning in the acute phase of pulmonary edema uncertain.

A multicenter feasibility study on ultrafiltration via a single peripheral venous access in acute heart failure with overt fluid overload.

OBJECTIVES: The need for a central venous catheter has limited the widespread use of ultrafiltration in daily clinical practice for the treatment of acute heart failure (AHF) with overt fluid overload. We evaluated the feasibility of a new ultrafiltration device, the CHIARA (Congestive Heart Impairment Advanced Removal Approach) system, that utilizes a single-lumen cannula (17G, multi-hole) inserted in a peripheral vein of the arm. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, feasibility study, consecutive ultrafiltration treatments (lasting ≥6 hours and with an ultrafiltration rate ≥100ml/h) with the CHIARA device and a single peripheral venous approach were performed at 6 Italian hospitals. For each session, we evaluated the performance of the venous access, the ultrafiltrate volume removed, and the cause of its interruption. RESULTS: One-hundred-three ultrafiltration sessions were performed in 55 patients with AHF (average 1.9±1.7 treatment/patient). The overall median length of ultrafiltration treatment was 14h (interquartile range 7-21) with removal of 3266±3088ml of fluid (183±30ml/hour). The treatment was successfully completed in 92 (89%) sessions and in 80% of patients. The mean suction flow rate from the vein was 70±20ml/min, while the mean re-injection flow rate was 98±26ml/min. There were no clinically relevant complications related to the venous access and/or to the anticoagulant therapy with heparin. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the CHIARA system satisfies clinical applicability and efficacy criteria in the treatment of AHF, in terms of adequate fluid removal through a single peripheral venous access.

Prognostic significance of serum creatinine and its change patterns in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: In acute coronary syndromes (ACS), serum creatinine (sCr) levels have short- and long-term prognostic value. However, it is possible that repeated evaluations of sCr during hospitalization, rather than measuring sCr value at admission only, might improve risk assessment. We investigated the relationship between sCr baseline value, its changes, and in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with ACS. METHODS: In 2,756 ACS patients, sCr was measured at hospital admission and then daily, until discharge from coronary care unit. Patients were grouped according to the maximum sCr change observed: <0.3 mg/dL change from baseline (stable renal function [SRF] group), ≥0.3 mg/dL decrease (improved renal function [IRF] group), and ≥0.3 mg/dL increase (worsening renal function [WRF] group). RESULTS: Of the 2,756 patients, 2,163 (78%) had SRF, 292 (11%) had IRF, and 301 (11%) had WRF. In-hospital mortality in the 3 groups was 0.5%, 2%, and 14% (P < .001), respectively. Peak sCr value was a more powerful predictor of mortality (area under the curve 0.86, 95% CI 0.81-0.92) than the initial sCr value (area under the curve 0.69, 95% CI 0.63-0.77; P < .001). When sCr and its change patterns during coronary care unit stay were evaluated together, improved mortality risk stratification was found. CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients, daily sCr value and its change pattern are stronger predictors of in-hospital mortality than the initial sCr value only; thus, their combined evaluation provides a more accurate and dynamic stratification of patients' risk. Finally, the intermediate mortality risk of IRF patients possibly reflects acute kidney injury started before hospitalization.

Continuous ultrafiltration in acute decompensated heart failure: current issues and future directions.

Most patients hospitalized for acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) present with symptoms and signs of volume overload, which are also associated with high rates of death and re-hospitalization. Several studies have investigated the possible use of extracorporeal ultrafiltration in the management of ADHF, evaluating potential clinical benefits in terms of hospitalization and survival rates versus those of conventional diuretic therapy. Though ultrafiltration remains an extremely appealing therapeutic option for patients with AHDF, some of the most recent studies have reported conflicting results. Differences in the selection of study population, heterogeneity of the indications for the use of ultrafiltration, disparity in the ultrafiltration protocols, and high variability in the pharmacologic therapies used for the control group could explain some of these contradictory findings. The purpose of the present review is to provide an overview and an update on the mechanisms and clinical effects of ultrafiltration and on currently available evidence supporting its use in ADHF.