You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 9, Issue 1
  • Impact of renal dysfunction on the management and outcome of acute heart failure: results from the French prospective, multicentre, DeFSSICA survey

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Emergency medicine
Research
Impact of renal dysfunction on the management and outcome of acute heart failure: results from the French prospective, multicentre, DeFSSICA survey
  1. Dominique Dos Reis1,
  2. Laurie Fraticelli2,
  3. Adrien Bassand3,
  4. Stéphane Manzo-Silberman4,
  5. Nicolas Peschanski5,
  6. Sandrine Charpentier6,7,8,
  7. Meyer Elbaz9,
  8. Dominique Savary10,
  9. Eric Bonnefoy-Cudraz11,
  10. Said Laribi12,13,
  11. Patrick Henry4,
  12. Abdallah Guerraoui14,
  13. Karim Tazarourte15,
  14. Tahar Chouihed3,16,17,
  15. Carlos El Khoury18,19
  1. 1 Ministère de la Défense, Val de Grâce Medical School, Paris, France
  2. 2 RESCUe Network, Lucien Hussel Hospital, Vienne, France
  3. 3 SAMU-SMUR-SAU Nancy, Hôpital Central, Nancy, Lorraine, France
  4. 4 Lariboisière Hospital, Department of Cardiology, Université Paris-Diderot, Paris, France
  5. 5 Emergency Department, Eure Seine Evreux Hospital, Évreux, France
  6. 6 Emergency Department, Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse, France
  7. 7 INSERM, U1027, Toulouse, France
  8. 8 Medical Department, Université Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
  9. 9 Department of Cardiology, Rangueil Hospital, Toulouse, France
  10. 10 Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit, Metz-Tessy, France
  11. 11 Department of Cardiology, Hôpital Cardiologique de Lyon, Lyon, France
  12. 12 Emergency Medicine Department, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France
  13. 13 INSERM UMR-S 942, Université Paris-Diderot, Paris, France
  14. 14 Calydial Dialysis Department, Lucien Hussel Hospital, Vienne, France
  15. 15 Emergency Department, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Rhône-Alpes, France
  16. 16 Centre d’Investigation Clinique Plurithématique 1433, Institut Lorrain du Cœur et des Vaisseaux, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France
  17. 17 INSERM U1116, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France
  18. 18 Emergency Department and RESCUe Network, Lucien Hussel Hospital, Vienne, France
  19. 19 University Lyon, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, HESPER EA, Lyon, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Carlos El Khoury; c.elkhoury{at}resuval.fr

Abstract

Objectives Cardiorenal 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.

Design Prospective, multicentre.

Setting Twenty-six academic, community and regional hospitals in France.

Participants 507 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).

Results Differences 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).

Conclusions Renal 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.

  • acute heart Failure
  • ahf
  • cardio-renal syndrome
  • crs
  • real-life
  • renal dysfunction

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022776

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • A large-scale, prospective, real-life study for the management and outcome of patients with cardiorenal syndrome compared with patients with acute heart failure without renal dysfunction.

    • Only two groups were included (ie, patients with or without kidney dysfunction), rather than for each stage of chronic kidney disease although the creatinine clearance cut-off (60 mL/min) is commonly used.

    • Glomerular filtration rate was calculated using three different methods.

    • Glomerular filtration rate estimations were performed by local laboratories for each centre (ie, a real-life situation).

    • There was no clearance monitoring after hospital discharge.

    Background 

    Heart failure (HF) has an incidence of approximately 2% in adults in developed countries1 and mainly affects elderly patients, who may have multiple comorbidities. One such comorbidity, impaired renal function, has been shown to be a stronger predictor of mortality than impaired cardiac function2 3 and can be present in 50% of patients treated for acute HF (AHF).4 The prognostic importance of the association of renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≤60 mL/min) and AHF (cardiorenal syndrome (CRS)) has only been demonstrated recently. This represents a complex pathophysiological condition that has been classified into five stages.5 6 It is worth noting that this is a mechanistic classification and the patients’ clinical management must consider the full clinical presentation.

    Even moderate degrees of renal insufficiency are independently associated with an increased risk of mortality from any cause in patients with HF.7 As such, CRS can lead to hesitancy among some clinicians to implement appropriate treatments for HF, such as diuretics, due to the effect that these may have to worsen the renal insufficiency. However, additional prospective research is needed and current recommendations are to maintain such treatments in patients with CRS,8 9 although the emergency physician should make an appropriate risk:benefit assessment for each patient.

    In this context, a subanalysis was conducted using real-life data from the Description de la Filière de Soins dans les Syndromes d’Insuffisance Cardiaque Aigue (DeFSSICA study), a large-scale, prospective study that was conducted in patients with suspected dyspnoea of cardiac origin in emergency departments (EDs) throughout France.10 The aim of this subanalysis was to compare the management and outcome of patients with CRS to patients with AHF without renal dysfunction in France using novel real-life data, based on the hypothesis that patients with CRS and AHF would have the same outcome if the management of CRS was based on that for patients with AHF without renal dysfunction.

    Methods

    Study design

    This was a prospective, multicentre study in patients presenting with suspected HF dyspnoea in 26 EDs in academic, community and regional hospitals (the DeFSSICA study) for which the rationale and design are reported elsewhere.10 Written information regarding the objectives of the survey was provided to all patients prior to their inclusion according to French law. Each participating physician presented the study to the patient and/or the patient’s family. The patient and/or the patient’s family could choose for the patient to withdraw from the study at any time. The study did not affect the patient–physician relationship or the patient’s care and follow-up.

    Patient involvement

    The research question was based on the prognostic importance of CRS and a need for real-life data on the management and outcome of patients with CRS. Patients were not involved in the design, recruitment and conduct of the study, and there is no plan to disseminate the results specifically to the patients who provided data used in this analysis.

    Selection of participants

    In the DeFSSICA survey, patients >18 years of age with dyspnoea compatible with AHF, defined as dyspnoea associated with peripheral oedema and/or pulmonary crackles and/or excessive weight gain and/or use of furosemide, were eligible for inclusion after ED admission and prior to chest X-ray and laboratory tests. Patient enrolment occurred between 16 June 2014 and 7 July 2014.

    In this analysis, only patients with known CrCl were included and were divided into those with CrCl ≤60 mL/min, that is, renal dysfunction (group 1) and those with CrCl >60 mL/min, that is, normal renal function (group 2). Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was calculated using either the Cockroft-Gault (9 centres), modification of diet in renal disease study (12 centres) or Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Epidemiology Collaboration equations (14 centres) (8 centres used two methods and 18 centres used one method).11 12

    Study assessments

    Patients’ baseline characteristics, medical history, social factors, in-hospital diagnostic tests and treatment, destination after ED discharge, in-hospital mortality and length of stay were recorded by emergency physicians in a case report form, which was structured according to the progress of care. Cardiac sonographic evaluations were performed at the discretion of the emergency physician. Abnormal chest X-ray was defined by the presence of cardiomegaly and/or alveolar oedema and/or interstitial opacity, and/or pleural effusion. The choice of treatment was at the emergency physician’s discretion and according to his/her usual practice. A final diagnosis of AHF was made by the emergency physician using a combination of a clinical history, abnormal chest X-ray, elevated brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or BNP prohormone (pro-BNP), and echocardiographic signs.

    Although it was not possible to impose any randomisation or blinding since this was an observational study, any potential bias in the study assessments was minimised by the provision of standard instructions to all participating physicians.

    Data were entered into a secure database located at the Réseau Cardiologie Urgence (Cardiovascular Emergency Network) Coordination Centre.

    Statistical analysis

    Medians and IQRs are provided for continuous variables, and numbers and percentages for qualitative variables. Comparative analyses were performed using the χ2 or Fisher’s exact test for binary variables and the Wilcoxon test for analysis of variance for continuous variables.13 The 5% level was used to identify differences between groups that were of statistical significance (p<0.05). Statistical evaluations were performed using R Statistical Software (V.3.4.1).

    Results

    Patient disposition and prevalence of CRS

    A total of 64 281 ED consultations took place during the survey period and 699 patients with dyspnoea of cardiac origin were included in DeFSSICA study. Of these, 537 patients were identified as having AHF, of whom only those with known CrCl (n=507) were included in this analysis.

    Patients in group 1 (n=335 (66.1%)) had renal dysfunction (CrCl ≤60 mL/min) and comprised the population with CRS. In this group, 99 patients (29.6%) had severe renal dysfunction (stage 4 or 5: CrCl: <30 mL/min) and 120 (35.8%) had a known history of chronic renal failure. All patients in group 2 (n=172 (33.9%)) had normal renal function (CrCl >60 mL/min).

    Patient disposition is presented in figure 1.

    Baseline characteristics

    The baseline characteristics of patients in group 1 and group 2 are shown in table 1. There was no difference between group 1 and group 2 in age (median (IQR): 84 (88–79) years and 82 (75–88) years; p=0.09) or sex distribution (42.99% male in group 1 and 44.19% male in group 2; p=0.87).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Patient disposition. DeFSSICA, Description de la Filière de Soins dans les Syndromes d’Insuffisance Cardiaque Aigue; HF, heart failure.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Baseline characteristics of patients with confirmed AHF syndrome

    As well as the higher incidence of chronic renal failure in group 1, patients with CRS were more likely to have chronic HF (56.42% in group 1 vs 47.67% in group 2; p<0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of any other comorbidity between groups. Patients in group 1 were more likely than patients in group 2 to receive furosemide (60.9% vs 52.91%; p<0.05), insulin (15.52% vs 9.3%; p=0.03) and amiodarone (14.33% vs 4.65%; p<0.01), but there were no other differences between groups for medications. Additionally, patients in group 1 were more likely to have been hospitalised for HF at least twice during the last year (15.52% vs 8.81%; p<0.01), and to be under the care of a cardiologist (72.24% vs 61.63%; p=0.02). The incidence of patients carrying a defibrillator and of pacemakers (single, dual or triple) are not presented since the sample sizes were small (n=16 and n=17, n=36 and n=6, respectively) and so the data were not considered sufficiently robust. Patients in group 1 were more likely to have a housekeeper (31.13% vs 23.26%; p=0.02) and nurse (29.25% vs 20.93%; p=0.04), but there was no difference between groups regarding family support, known cognitive impairment or the incidence of being bedridden.

    Hospitalisation and clinical status

    Although there were few statistically significant differences between groups in hospitalisation and clinical status parameters (table 2), there was a consistent trend towards more congestion in group 1, including higher levels of dyspnoea, more pulmonary infiltrates on chest X-ray, higher BNP and pro-BNP (table 3 and below).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Hospitalisation route and clinical status of patients with confirmed AHF syndrome

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Biological and diagnosis tests of patients with confirmed AHF syndrome

    There were no significant differences between groups in their means of transport to the ED (most commonly by personal means (45.76% overall)), Killip status (most patients in each group had a Killip status of 2 (53.06% overall) and signs of cardiogenic shock (2.96% overall).

    Early management and diagnosis

    At admission, blood samples from all patients underwent biological analysis (table 3). As well as the differences between groups for CrCl, significant differences were observed for BNP, which was 2.2-fold higher in group 1 than group 2 (1157.5 ng/L vs 534 ng/L; p<0.01) and pro-BNP, which was twofold higher in group 1 than group 2 (5120 ng/L vs 2513 ng/L; p<0.01). Additionally, troponin was more likely to be positive in patients in group 1 than group 2 (58.21% vs 44.19%; p<0.01). There were no differences between groups for sodium, potassium or haemoglobin.

    Most patients underwent under an ECG (98.61% overall) chest X-ray (94.87% overall). Patients in group 1 were more likely than those in group 2 to have left bundle branch block (19.1% vs 12.79%; p<0.05), cardiomegaly (51.04% vs 37.21%; p=0.01) and interstitial opacities (60.3% vs 47.67%; p=0.02).

    Echography was only performed for 82 patients and so the data were not considered sufficiently robust for inclusion in the analysis.

    Emergency treatments

    Patients in group 1 were more likely than group 2 to receive emergency treatment of nitrates (21.19% vs 12.21%; p<0.01), but there were no group differences in other emergency measures (furosemide, oxygen, anticoagulant, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation, antiarrhythmics, ionotropic agents, tracheal intubation) (table 4). Overall 6.31% of patients received no emergency treatment, with no difference between groups.

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Emergency treatment of patients with confirmed AHF syndrome

    Outcomes

    Precipitating factors were not determined in 42.21% of cases overall, with no overall difference between groups (table 5). The most common determined precipitating factors were an infection (25.25% overall), arrhythmia (15.19% overall) and hypertension (10.65% overall). Diabetes decompensation was considered to be the precipitating factor for AHF in 2.99% of patients in group 1 but none in group 2 (p=0.01). There were no other group differences in precipitating factors.

    View this table:
    Table 5

    Outcomes of patients with confirmed AHF syndrome

    There was no difference between groups in discharge destination (which was most often cardiology (28.01% overall)), and the discharge destination was deemed appropriate for a similar number of patients in each group (75.35% overall).

    Neither in-hospital mortality (5.92% overall) nor the percentage of patients still hospitalised at 30 days (6.31% overall) was significantly different between group 1 and group 2. However, the median length of stay was 2 days longer in group 1 than in group 2 (8 days vs 6 days; p=0.03) (table 5).

    Discussion

    The DeFSSICA study was a large-scale, prospective, real-life study conducted following the admission of patients with AHF to EDs throughout France. As such, the data are primarily applicable to the French population, although wider extrapolation is possible due to coherences with similar studies in other geographical regions. The overall DeFSSICA study data are presented elsewhere10 and the present subanalysis reports real-life data from subgroups of patients with AHF with or without concomitant renal dysfunction, based on a CrCl threshold of 60 mL/min. The results show that AHF admissions to EDs are often associated with renal impairment, with almost two-thirds of AHF admissions having CrCl ≤60 mL/min. This prevalence is comparable to published data from France,14 Italy,15 16 Poland,17 Spain,18 19 Taiwan20 and the USA,21–23 as well as from pan-European24 25 and wider international studies.26 In these studies,14–26 the prevalence of renal impairment on the admission of patients with AHF ranged from 54.5% to 64%, including 12.4% to 27.4% of patients with severe renal insufficiency. Patients with a history of chronic renal failure ranged from 21.4% to 32.5%, which is also comparable to the findings of the DeFSSICA survey. However, it should be noted that impaired cardiac function leads to reduced renal perfusion, which could be in addition to an underlying chronic renal insufficiency. Additionally, increased abdominal pressure at admission that can result from ascites can lead to renal vein compression and reduced GFR at admission, which could also result in elevated serum creatinine. It is likely, therefore, that a proportion of acute kidney injury diagnosed at admission based on serum creatinine could be due to temporary changes in perfusion pressures rather than kidney damage per se; these functional reductions in GFR would be expected to recover once a normal haemodynamic function is restored. While it is therefore important to consider the use of biomarkers to provide a more precise assessment of kidney function than serum creatinine,27 28 it is also important to note that the evidence supporting the preferential use of novel biomarkers rather than serum creatinine to detect acute kidney injury can be inconsistent and remains an area for further research.29–32

    The overall baseline characteristics, clinical status, biological and diagnostic tests, emergency treatment, and outcome of the patients included in this subanalysis was similar to the overall population in the DeFSSICA study; however, some differences were observed between patients with AHF with and without renal dysfunction, including a trend towards more congestion in patients with CRS. As would be expected due to reduced kidney excretion,33 and as described elsewhere,34–37 BNP and pro-BNP levels were higher in patients with CRS than in patients with AHF with normal renal function and the percentage of troponin-positive patients was also higher in the CRS group. These biomarkers probably reflect the congestion status and remain formally recommended for the management of patients with AHF, especially for their prognostic value. The appropriate use of loop diuretics and/or vasodilators38 in the CRS group, as well as in the AHF group without renal dysfunction, may explain in part the similar intrahospital mortality rate in each group and the similar proportion of patients with AHF with and without renal dysfunction who were still in hospital 30 days after ED admission. Importantly, therefore, the prognosis of patients with CRS was not significantly different using loop diuretics and/or nitrates to those without renal dysfunction. As such, it appears that the correct congestive assessment is vital in this complex clinical situation with concomitant failures in two organs.

    Recent publications suggest that appropriate, fast-acting decongesting therapies, as recommended by international guidelines, improve the prognosis for patients with AHF as long as such therapies are introduced early, even if renal impairment develops at the same time.8 Furthermore, it appears that renal impairment in patients with AHF does not have an adverse impact on patient prognosis provided that the congestion is improved. Renal function should be assessed according to the level of patient congestion, and so tools for the assessment of congestion such as the BNP or pro-BNP biomarkers,39 lung ultrasound B-lines (38) or the assessment of the dimensions and compliance of the inferior vena cava are vital. Additionally, haemoconcentration monitoring can be useful for monitoring congestion and significantly improves the short-term outcome of patients with AHF40 and several routinely assessed biological parameters, for example, serum protein, albumin, haemoglobin and haematocrit have been proposed as surrogate markers.41 Furthermore, formulae have been developed to indirectly estimate plasma volume using haemoglobin and/or haematocrit data.42 43 Further research is needed to establish the ability of novel biomarkers such as urinary angiotensinogen,44 neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin,45 46 kidney injury molecule-1,47 interleukin-18,48 49 N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase,50 cystatine C51 52 or a combination of some or all of these could also be used to improve clinical decision-making and therapy. The assessment of diuresis and natriuresis, which reflect both glomerular and tubular function, could offer a strategy to achieve decongestion.50 53 54 Ferreira et al 55 and Palazzuoli et al 56 showed that the lack of a diuretic response is a more important prognostic factor than the use of loop diuretics. This suggests a new diagnostic challenge, that is to assess the patient’s response to diuretics.57–60 However, despite some proposals to define diuretic resistance (eg, persistent congestion despite adequate and escalating doses of diuretic with >80 mg furosemide/day, amount of sodium excreted as a percentage of filtered load <0.2%, failure to excrete ≥90 mmol of sodium within 72 hours of a 160 mg oral furosemide dose given two times daily) and the means of evaluation (eg, weight loss per unit of 40 mg furosemide (or equivalent), net fluid loss/mg of loop diuretic (40 mg of furosemide or equivalent) during hospitalisation, natriuretic response to furosemide),61 there is currently no consensus for commonly accepted standards. Additionally, it is important that any alteration of GFR should be interpreted in the context of the deterioration of the clinical situation.

    Another alternative therapy in CRS is the use of mineralocorticoid antagonists. These have been associated with an improvement in both congestion62 63 and mortality in patients with HF,64 65 although the Aldosterone Targeted Neurohormonal Combined with Natriuresis Therapy in Heart Failure (ATHENA-HF) trial results are less conclusive.66 Combined therapies have also been evaluated, including hypotonic saline serum in combination with diuretic therapy to improve diuresis67 68 and mannitol in combination with furosemide,61 although their benefit in diuretic-resistant patients is not confirmed. The addition of metolazone to furosemide could be of interest because of its capacity to produce diuresis even in patients with low GFR.69 70 In a meta-analysis, Wang et al showed that tolvaptan, an oral vasopressin V2-receptor antagonist, may also represent an alternative therapy in worsening renal function (WRF).71 Several studies have shown that tolvaptan can decrease WRF in patients treated with furosemide.72 73 Finally, venous ultrafiltration allows controlled hydrosodic depletion by subtracting isotonic fluid, compared with diuretics that allow the subtraction of hypotonic fluid. Other studies suggest that the effectiveness of ultrafiltration is associated with a reduction in inflammatory cytokines.74 These and other approaches in patients with cardiac insufficiency and resistance to diuretics have recently been reviewed.61

    The CRS analysis using data from the DeFSSICA survey has some limitations. First, only two groups have been analysed (ie, patients with or without renal dysfunction), whereas CKD is characterised by five stages.5 However, as noted earlier, this is a mechanistic classification and in the present analysis the use of the CrCl threshold of 60 mL/min, which is commonly used to define renal dysfunction,2 37 75–77 is considered to be satisfactory, especially since the small number of patients would not allow a thorough analysis for five subcategories. However, the pathophysiology of WRF in AHF is complex78 and using a spot measurement of serum creatinine to classify CRS has limitations. This approach does not allow the separation of patients with acute and chronic CRS: in the present study, 35.8% of patients included in the CRS group had a history of chronic renal failure and so may not have suffered any acute change in renal function, whereas patients with acute changes in serum creatinine compared with their own baseline but not fulfilling the <60 mL/min criterion would not have been included in the CRS group. That said, the presence of renal failure on admission remains strongly associated with a poor prognosis irrespective of the anterior renal status and despite the lack of WRF in the first 5 days.79 While the choice of a CrCl threshold of 30 mL/min could have led to a greater chance of obtaining a significant difference between groups in terms of outcome, we based our analysis on the 60 mL/min cut-off since it is more widely used. Second, since the data used are observational, it was not possible to impose any randomisation or blinding, and the number of patients in each group was not balanced. Third, GFR assessments were performed by local laboratories for each centre, rather than standardised at a single centre, and repeated measures of GFR could have improved their accuracy and comparability. The use of different formulae to evaluate CrCl in a chronic disease state and an acute context without knowledge of the baseline value reflects the real-life situation. While potentially problematic, with the possibility of some incorrect classification of CKD, numerous previous studies of the impact of renal failure in AHF have used a similar approach.2 37 75 Finally, it was not possible to subclassify different types of CRS in this analysis since Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes data were not collected, although as described earlier the small number of patients would not have allowed a thorough analysis for each subcategory.

    Conclusion

    These real-life data suggested that patients with CRS have the same outcome as patients with AHF without renal dysfunction when the treatment of the former group is modelled on that for the latter group. This finding should not limit the use of loop diuretics and/or vasodilators as long as the patients present congestion as assessed using biomarkers and ultrasound. The use of diuretic treatment should be based on a more rapid diagnosis of congestion and evaluation of an inadequate response to diuretics, allowing the rapid and appropriate implementation of alternative therapies if necessary.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank the emergency physicians and cardiologists and patients who participated in this survey at the following centers: CHU Toulouse, CHU Rouen, CHU Clermont Ferrand, CHU Nancy, CHR Metz-Thionville-Hôpital de Mercy, Hôpital Lariboisière-Paris, CHR Annecy Genevois, CHU Lyon-Hôp, Edouard Herriot, CHRU de Lille, Chu De Caen, CHU Nice-Hôpital Saint-Roch, CHU de Grenoble, Hôpital Bicêtre-Paris, Hôpital St Louis Paris, CH I Meulan, CH d’Avignon, CH Jacques Lacarin–Vichy, CH d’Aix En Provence, CH Fleyriat – Bourg En Bresse, CH Bourgoin Jallieu, CHU de Saint Etienne, CH du Forez Montbrison-Feurs, CH de Firminy, CH Villefranche-Sur-Saône, CHU De Brest, CH Henri Mondor, CH de Vienne.

    The authors also thank the RESCUe Network for the practical implementation of this survey and statistical analysis and Novartis France for its financial support.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      2. Sayago-Silva I ,
      3. García-López F ,
      4. Segovia-Cubero J
      . Epidemiology of heart failure in Spain over the last 20 years. Rev Esp Cardiol 2013;66:649–56.doi:10.1016/j.rec.2013.03.012
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. 2.↵
      2. Ferreira JP ,
      3. Girerd N ,
      4. Pellicori P , et al
      . Renal function estimation and Cockroft-Gault formulas for predicting cardiovascular mortality in population-based, cardiovascular risk, heart failure and post-myocardial infarction cohorts: The Heart ‘OMics’ in AGEing (HOMAGE) and the high-risk myocardial infarction database initiatives. BMC Med 2016;14:181.doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0731-2
      OpenUrl
    3. 3.↵
      2. Hillege HL ,
      3. Girbes AR ,
      4. de Kam PJ , et al
      . Renal function, neurohormonal activation, and survival in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation 2000;102:203–10.doi:10.1161/01.CIR.102.2.203
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. 4.↵
      2. Damman K ,
      3. Valente MA ,
      4. Voors AA , et al
      . Renal impairment, worsening renal function, and outcome in patients with heart failure: an updated meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2014;35:455–69.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht386
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. 5.↵
      2. Ronco C ,
      3. Haapio M ,
      4. House AA , et al
      . Cardiorenal syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:1527–39.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.07.051
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    6. 6.↵
      2. Ronco C ,
      3. House AA ,
      4. Haapio M
      . Cardiorenal syndrome: refining the definition of a complex symbiosis gone wrong. Intensive Care Med 2008;34:957–62.doi:10.1007/s00134-008-1017-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. 7.↵
      2. Dries DL ,
      3. Exner DV ,
      4. Domanski MJ , et al
      . The prognostic implications of renal insufficiency in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:681–9.doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00608-7
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    8. 8.↵
      2. Hanberg JS ,
      3. Tang WHW ,
      4. Wilson FP , et al
      . An exploratory analysis of the competing effects of aggressive decongestion and high-dose loop diuretic therapy in the DOSE trial. Int J Cardiol 2017;241:277–82.doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.03.114
      OpenUrl
    9. 9.↵
      2. Testani JM ,
      3. Ter Maaten JM
      . Decongestion in acute heart failure: does the end justify the Means? JACC Heart Fail 2016;4:589–90.doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2016.03.024
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    10. 10.↵
      2. Chouihed T ,
      3. Manzo-Silberman S ,
      4. Peschanski N , et al
      . Management of suspected acute heart failure dyspnea in the emergency department: results from the French prospective multicenter DeFSSICA survey. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2016;24:112.doi:10.1186/s13049-016-0300-x
      OpenUrl
    11. 11.↵
      Diseases NIoDaDK. Estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Secondary Estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR). 2015 https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-communication-programs/nkdep/lab-evaluation/gfr/estimating/Pages/estimating.aspx
    12. 12.↵
      2. Botev R ,
      3. Mallié JP ,
      4. Couchoud C , et al
      . Estimating glomerular filtration rate: Cockcroft-Gault and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formulas compared to renal inulin clearance. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;4:899–906.doi:10.2215/CJN.05371008
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. 13.↵
      2. Ancelle T
      . Statistique Epidémiologique. 3rd ed. Paris: Maloine, 2011.
    14. 14.↵
      2. Logeart D ,
      3. Isnard R ,
      4. Resche-Rigon M , et al
      . Current aspects of the spectrum of acute heart failure syndromes in a real-life setting: the OFICA study. Eur J Heart Fail 2013;15:465–76.doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfs189
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. 15.↵
      2. Oliva F ,
      3. Mortara A ,
      4. Cacciatore G , et al
      . Acute heart failure patient profiles, management and in-hospital outcome: results of the Italian Registry on Heart Failure Outcome. Eur J Heart Fail 2012;14:1208–17.doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfs117
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. 16.↵
      2. Tavazzi L ,
      3. Maggioni AP ,
      4. Lucci D , et al
      . Nationwide survey on acute heart failure in cardiology ward services in Italy. Eur Heart J 2006;27:1207–15.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi845
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. 17.↵
      2. Straburzyńska-Migaj E ,
      3. Kałużna-Oleksy M ,
      4. Maggioni AP , et al
      . Patients with heart failure and concomitant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease participating in the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC-HF Pilot) - Polish population. Arch Med Sci 2015;11:743–50.doi:10.5114/aoms.2014.47878
      OpenUrl
    18. 18.↵
      2. Conde-Martel A ,
      3. Formiga F ,
      4. Pérez-Bocanegra C , et al
      . Clinical characteristics and one-year survival in heart failure patients more than 85 years of age compared with younger. Eur J Intern Med 2013;24:339–45.doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2013.01.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. 19.↵
      2. Llorens P ,
      3. Escoda R ,
      4. Miró Ò , et al
      . [Characteristics and clinical course of patients with acute heart failure and the therapeutic measures applied in Spanish emergency departments: based on the EAHFE registry (Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Emergency Departments)]. Emergencias 2015;27:11–22.
      OpenUrl
    20. 20.↵
      2. Chang HY ,
      3. Wang CC ,
      4. Wu YW , et al
      . One-Year Outcomes of Acute Decompensated Systolic Heart Failure in Taiwan: Lessons from TSOC-HFrEF Registry. Acta Cardiol Sin 2017;33:127–38.
      OpenUrl
    21. 21.↵
      2. Abraham WT ,
      3. Fonarow GC ,
      4. Albert NM , et al
      . Predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for heart failure: insights from the organized program to initiate lifesaving treatment in hospitalized patients with heart failure (OPTIMIZE-HF). J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:347–56.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.04.028
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    22. 22.↵
      2. Adams KF ,
      3. Fonarow GC ,
      4. Emerman CL , et al
      . Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for heart failure in the united states: rationale, design, and preliminary observations from the first 100,000 cases in the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE). Am Heart J 2005;149:209–16.doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2004.08.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. 23.↵
      2. Diercks DB ,
      3. Fonarow GC ,
      4. Kirk JD , et al
      . Risk stratification in women enrolled in the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry Emergency Module (ADHERE-EM). Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:151–8.doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00030.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. 24.↵
      2. Cleland JG ,
      3. Swedberg K ,
      4. Follath F , et al
      . The EuroHeart Failure survey programme- a survey on the quality of care among patients with heart failure in Europe. Part 1: patient characteristics and diagnosis. Eur Heart J 2003;24:442–63.doi:10.1016/S0195-668X(02)00823-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. 25.↵
      2. Nieminen MS ,
      3. Brutsaert D ,
      4. Dickstein K , et al
      . EuroHeart Failure Survey II (EHFS II): a survey on hospitalized acute heart failure patients: description of population. Eur Heart J 2006;27:2725–36.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl193
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. 26.↵
      2. Follath F ,
      3. Yilmaz MB ,
      4. Delgado JF , et al
      . Clinical presentation, management and outcomes in the Acute Heart Failure Global Survey of Standard Treatment (ALARM-HF). Intensive Care Med 2011;37:619–26.doi:10.1007/s00134-010-2113-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. 27.↵
      2. Molitoris BA ,
      3. Levin A ,
      4. Warnock DG , et al
      . Improving outcomes of acute kidney injury: report of an initiative. Nat Clin Pract Nephrol 2007;3:439–42.doi:10.1038/ncpneph0551
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. 28.↵
      2. Waikar SS ,
      3. Bonventre JV
      . Creatinine kinetics and the definition of acute kidney injury. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;20:672–9.doi:10.1681/ASN.2008070669
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. 29.↵
      2. Breidthardt T ,
      3. Sabti Z ,
      4. Ziller R , et al
      . Diagnostic and prognostic value of cystatin C in acute heart failure. Clin Biochem 2017;50:1007–13.doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.07.016
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. 30.↵
      2. Breidthardt T ,
      3. Socrates T ,
      4. Drexler B , et al
      . Plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin for the prediction of acute kidney injury in acute heart failure. Crit Care 2012;16:R2.doi:10.1186/cc10600
    31. 31.↵
      2. Maisel AS ,
      3. Wettersten N ,
      4. van Veldhuisen DJ , et al
      . Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin for acute kidney injury during acute heart failure hospitalizations: The AKINESIS Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:1420–31.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.06.055
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    32. 32.↵
      2. Meersch M ,
      3. Schmidt C ,
      4. Hoffmeier A , et al
      . Prevention of cardiac surgery-associated AKI by implementing the KDIGO guidelines in high risk patients identified by biomarkers: the PrevAKI randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2017;43:1551–61.doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4670-3
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. 33.↵
      2. Tuegel C ,
      3. Bansal N
      . Heart failure in patients with kidney disease. Heart 2017;103:1848–53.doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310794
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    34. 34.↵
      2. Anwaruddin S ,
      3. Lloyd-Jones DM ,
      4. Baggish A , et al
      . Renal function, congestive heart failure, and amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide measurement: results from the ProBNP Investigation of Dyspnea in the Emergency Department (PRIDE) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:91–7.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.08.051
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    35. 35.↵
      2. Wu AH ,
      3. Jaffe AS ,
      4. Apple FS , et al
      . National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines: use of cardiac troponin and B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide for etiologies other than acute coronary syndromes and heart failure. Clin Chem 2007;53:2086–96.doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.095679
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. 36.↵
      2. Lamb EJ ,
      3. Vickery S ,
      4. Price CP
      . Amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide to diagnose congestive heart failure in patients with impaired kidney function. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1060–1.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.06.019
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    37. 37.↵
      2. Vickery S ,
      3. Price CP ,
      4. John RI , et al
      . B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino-terminal proBNP in patients with CKD: relationship to renal function and left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Kidney Dis 2005;46:610–20.doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.06.017
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    38. 38.↵
      2. Peacock WF ,
      3. Emerman C ,
      4. Costanzo MR , et al
      . Early vasoactive drugs improve heart failure outcomes. Congest Heart Fail 2009;15:256–64.doi:10.1111/j.1751-7133.2009.00112.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    39. 39.↵
      2. Gargani L ,
      3. Frassi F ,
      4. Soldati G , et al
      . Ultrasound lung comets for the differential diagnosis of acute cardiogenic dyspnoea: a comparison with natriuretic peptides. Eur J Heart Fail 2008;10:70–7.doi:10.1016/j.ejheart.2007.10.009
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. 40.↵
      2. Breidthardt T ,
      3. Weidmann ZM ,
      4. Twerenbold R , et al
      . Impact of haemoconcentration during acute heart failure therapy on mortality and its relationship with worsening renal function. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:226–36.doi:10.1002/ejhf.667
      OpenUrl
    41. 41.↵
      2. Girerd N ,
      3. Seronde MF ,
      4. Coiro S , et al
      . Integrative assessment of congestion in heart failure throughout the patient journey. JACC Heart Fail 2018;6:273–85.doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2017.09.023
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. 42.↵
      2. Mentz RJ ,
      3. Kjeldsen K ,
      4. Rossi GP , et al
      . Decongestion in acute heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2014;16:471–82.doi:10.1002/ejhf.74
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. 43.↵
      2. Duarte K ,
      3. Monnez JM ,
      4. Albuisson E , et al
      . Prognostic value of estimated plasma volume in heart failure. JACC Heart Fail 2015;3:886–93.doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2015.06.014
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    44. 44.↵
      2. Yang X ,
      3. Chen C ,
      4. Tian J , et al
      . Urinary angiotensinogen level predicts AKI in Acute decompensated heart failure: a prospective, two-stage study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;26:2032–41.doi:10.1681/ASN.2014040408
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    45. 45.↵
      2. Elsharawy S ,
      3. Raslan L ,
      4. Morsy S , et al
      . Plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin as a marker for the prediction of worsening renal function in children hospitalized for acute heart failure. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2016;27:49–54.doi:10.4103/1319-2442.174071
      OpenUrl
    46. 46.↵
      2. Ito M ,
      3. Doi K ,
      4. Takahashi M , et al
      . Plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin predicts major adverse cardiovascular events after cardiac care unit discharge. J Cardiol 2016;67:184–91.doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2015.05.010
      OpenUrl
    47. 47.↵
      2. Medić B ,
      3. Rovčanin B ,
      4. Basta Jovanović G , et al
      . Kidney Injury Molecule-1 and cardiovascular diseases: from basic science to clinical practice. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:1–10.doi:10.1155/2015/854070
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    48. 48.↵
      Springer-Verlag. Les biomarqueurs en médécine d’urgence [French]. 1 ed . Paris: Springer-Verlag, 2012.
    49. 49.↵
      2. Taub PR ,
      3. Borden KC ,
      4. Fard A , et al
      . Role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and prognosis of acute kidney injury in patients with cardiorenal syndrome. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2012;10:657–67.doi:10.1586/erc.12.26
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. 50.↵
      2. Verbrugge FH ,
      3. Dupont M ,
      4. Steels P , et al
      . The kidney in congestive heart failure: ‘are natriuresis, sodium, and diuretics really the good, the bad and the ugly?’. Eur J Heart Fail 2014;16:133–42.doi:10.1002/ejhf.35
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. 51.↵
      2. Lassus JP ,
      3. Harjola VP ,
      4. Peuhkurinen K , et al
      . Cystatin C, NT-proBNP, and inflammatory markers in acute heart failure: insights into the cardiorenal syndrome. Biomarkers 2011;16:302–10.doi:10.3109/1354750X.2011.555822
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. 52.↵
      2. Legrand M ,
      3. De Berardinis B ,
      4. Gaggin HK , et al
      . Evidence of uncoupling between renal dysfunction and injury in cardiorenal syndrome: insights from the BIONICS study. PLoS One 2014;9:e112313.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112313
    53. 53.↵
      2. Metra M ,
      3. Davison B ,
      4. Bettari L , et al
      . Is worsening renal function an ominous prognostic sign in patients with acute heart failure? The role of congestion and its interaction with renal function. Circ Heart Fail 2012;5:54–62.doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.111.963413
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    54. 54.↵
      2. Mullens W ,
      3. Verbrugge FH ,
      4. Nijst P , et al
      . Renal sodium avidity in heart failure: from pathophysiology to treatment strategies. Eur Heart J 2017;38:1872–82.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx035
      OpenUrl
    55. 55.↵
      2. Ferreira JP ,
      3. Girerd N ,
      4. Bettencourt Medeiros P , et al
      . Lack of diuretic efficiency (but not low diuresis) early in an acutely decompensated heart failure episode is associated with increased 180-day mortality. Cardiorenal Med 2017;7:137–49.doi:10.1159/000455903
      OpenUrl
    56. 56.↵
      2. Palazzuoli A ,
      3. Testani JM ,
      4. Ruocco G , et al
      . Different diuretic dose and response in acute decompensated heart failure: clinical characteristics and prognostic significance. Int J Cardiol 2016;224:213–9.doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.09.005
      OpenUrl
    57. 57.↵
      2. Damman K ,
      3. Testani JM
      . The kidney in heart failure: an update. Eur Heart J 2015;36:1437–44.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv010
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    58. 58.↵
      2. Hoorn EJ ,
      3. Ellison DH
      . Diuretic resistance. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2017;69:136–42.doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.08.027
      OpenUrl
    59. 59.↵
      2. Ray EC ,
      3. Boyd-Shiwarski CR ,
      4. Kleyman TR
      . Why diuretics fail failing hearts. J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;28:3137–8.doi:10.1681/ASN.2017070797
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    60. 60.↵
      2. Valente MA ,
      3. Voors AA ,
      4. Damman K , et al
      . Diuretic response in acute heart failure: clinical characteristics and prognostic significance. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1284–93.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu065
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. 61.↵
      2. ter Maaten JM ,
      3. Valente MA ,
      4. Damman K , et al
      . Diuretic response in acute heart failure-pathophysiology, evaluation, and therapy. Nat Rev Cardiol 2015;12:184–92.doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2014.215
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    62. 62.↵
      2. Bansal S ,
      3. Lindenfeld J ,
      4. Schrier RW
      . Sodium retention in heart failure and cirrhosis: potential role of natriuretic doses of mineralocorticoid antagonist? Circ Heart Fail 2009;2:370–6.doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.108.821199
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    63. 63.↵
      2. Hensen J ,
      3. Abraham WT ,
      4. Dürr JA , et al
      . Aldosterone in congestive heart failure: analysis of determinants and role in sodium retention. Am J Nephrol 1991;11:441–6.doi:10.1159/000168356
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    64. 64.↵
      RALES. Effectiveness of spironolactone added to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a loop diuretic for severe chronic congestive heart failure (the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study [RALES]). Am J Cardiol 1996;78:902–7.doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00465-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    65. 65.↵
      2. Pitt B ,
      3. Zannad F ,
      4. Remme WJ , et al
      . The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. Randomized aldactone evaluation study investigators. N Engl J Med 1999;341:709–17.doi:10.1056/NEJM199909023411001
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    66. 66.↵
      2. Butler J ,
      3. Anstrom KJ ,
      4. Felker GM , et al
      . Efficacy and safety of spironolactone in acute heart failure: the athena-hf randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 2017;2:950–8.doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2198
      OpenUrlPubMed
    67. 67.↵
      2. Licata G ,
      3. Di Pasquale P ,
      4. Parrinello G , et al
      . Effects of high-dose furosemide and small-volume hypertonic saline solution infusion in comparison with a high dose of furosemide as bolus in refractory congestive heart failure: long-term effects. Am Heart J 2003;145:459–66.doi:10.1067/mhj.2003.166
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    68. 68.↵
      2. Paterna S ,
      3. Di Pasquale P ,
      4. Parrinello G , et al
      . Changes in brain natriuretic peptide levels and bioelectrical impedance measurements after treatment with high-dose furosemide and hypertonic saline solution versus high-dose furosemide alone in refractory congestive heart failure: a double-blind study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:1997–2003.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.01.059
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    69. 69.↵
      2. Ng TM ,
      3. Konopka E ,
      4. Hyderi AF , et al
      . Comparison of bumetanide- and metolazone-based diuretic regimens to furosemide in acute heart failure. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 2013;18:345–53.doi:10.1177/1074248413482755
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    70. 70.↵
      2. Tilstone WJ ,
      3. Dargie H ,
      4. Dargie EN , et al
      . Pharmacokinetics of metolazone in normal subjects and in patients with cardiac or renal failure. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1974;16:322–9.doi:10.1002/cpt1974162322
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    71. 71.↵
      2. Wang C ,
      3. Xiong B ,
      4. Cai L
      . Effects of Tolvaptan in patients with acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2017;17:164.doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0598-y
      OpenUrl
    72. 72.↵
      2. Jujo K ,
      3. Saito K ,
      4. Ishida I , et al
      . Randomized pilot trial comparing tolvaptan with furosemide on renal and neurohumoral effects in acute heart failure. ESC Heart Fail 2016;3:177–88.doi:10.1002/ehf2.12088
      OpenUrl
    73. 73.↵
      2. Kimura K ,
      3. Momose T ,
      4. Hasegawa T , et al
      . Early administration of tolvaptan preserves renal function in elderly patients with acute decompensated heart failure. J Cardiol 2016;67:399–405.doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2015.09.020
      OpenUrl
    74. 74.↵
      2. Torina AG ,
      3. Silveira-Filho LM ,
      4. Vilarinho KA , et al
      . Use of modified ultrafiltration in adults undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with inflammatory modulation and less postoperative blood loss: a randomized and controlled study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;144:663–70.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.04.012
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    75. 75.↵
      2. Chew DP ,
      3. Astley C ,
      4. Molloy D , et al
      . Morbidity, mortality and economic burden of renal impairment in cardiac intensive care. Intern Med J 2006;36:185–92.doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01012.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    76. 76.↵
      2. Schaub JA ,
      3. Coca SG ,
      4. Moledina DG , et al
      . Amino-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide for Diagnosis and Prognosis in Patients With Renal Dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Heart Fail 2015;3:977–89.doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2015.07.014
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    77. 77.↵
      2. Tsutamoto T ,
      3. Kawahara C ,
      4. Yamaji M , et al
      . Relationship between renal function and serum cardiac troponin T in patients with chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:653–8.doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfp072
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    78. 78.↵
      2. Aronson D ,
      3. Abassi Z ,
      4. Allon E , et al
      . Fluid loss, venous congestion, and worsening renal function in acute decompensated heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2013;15:637–43.doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hft036
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    79. 79.↵
      2. Shirakabe A ,
      3. Hata N ,
      4. Kobayashi N , et al
      . Worsening renal function definition is insufficient for evaluating acute renal failure in acute heart failure. ESC Heart Fail 2018;5:322–31.doi:10.1002/ehf2.12264
      OpenUrl

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SM-S, NP, SC, ME, DS, EB-C, SL, PH, TC and CEK conceived the study, designed the trial and obtained research funding. TC and CEK supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. NP, SC, DS and TC undertook recruitment of participating centers and patients. LF managed the data, including quality control, provided statistical advice and analysed the data. DdR, LF, AB, AG, KT, TC and CEK drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and are accountable for its content.

    • Funding Andrew Lane (Lane Medical Writing), funded by the RESCUe network, provided professional medical writing assistance in the preparation and development of the manuscript in accordance with the European Medical Writers Association guidelines and Good Publication Practice.

    • Competing interests CEK has received grants from Novartis (other than this work), Daiichy Sankyo and Boehringer Ingleheim. NP report has acted as a paid consultant for Vygon SA. SC reports personal fees from Novartis (other than this work). LF is an employee of RESCUe Network.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Ethics approval The study received approval from the National Commission for Liberties and Data Protection (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés) (number DR-2014–543) and the Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Information in the field of Health Research (Comité Consultatif sur le Traitement de l’Information en matière de Recherche dans le Domaine de la Santé) (number 14–291).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement The database supporting the results presented in this article can be shared on reasonable request.