BACKGROUND: Most heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients, at some point, present to an emergency department with typical symptoms of volume overload. Clinically, most respond well to standard diuretic therapy, sometimes at the cost of renal function. The study sought to define the prognostic significance of fluid status versus renal function in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients with HFpEF were enrolled in our prospective registry. Twelve patients with clinically overt decompensation were excluded. Fluid status at baseline was determined by bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy. The primary outcome measure was a combined end point consisting of hospitalization for heart failure and/or death for cardiac reason. RESULTS: Mean age was 74.4±8.4years. Ninety-one (61%) patients were hypo- or normovolemic (relative fluid overload [Rel. FO] -0.7±5.7%) while 59 (39%) patients presented with fluid overload (Rel. FO 11.5±2.7%). During a median follow-up of 24.3months (interquartile range: 19.8-33.2), 34% of patients reached the combined end point. Multivariate Cox hazard analysis identified fluid overload (hazard ratio: 3.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.68-5.68; p<0.001) as an independent predictor of adverse outcome. Patients with fluid overload and normal renal function showed a worse event-free survival compared to the subgroup with normohydration and impaired renal function (log-rank: p=0.042). CONCLUSION: HFpEF patients with measurable fluid overload face a dismal prognosis as compared to euvolemic patients. Our data, while preliminary, suggest that patients with fluid overload may face a better outcome under continued fluid removal irrespective of changes in eGFR.
BACKGROUND: Most heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients, at some point, present to an emergency department with typical symptoms of volume overload. Clinically, most respond well to standard diuretic therapy, sometimes at the cost of renal function. The study sought to define the prognostic significance of fluid status versus renal function in patients with HFpEF. METHODS: One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients with HFpEF were enrolled in our prospective registry. Twelve patients with clinically overt decompensation were excluded. Fluid status at baseline was determined by bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy. The primary outcome measure was a combined end point consisting of hospitalization for heart failure and/or death for cardiac reason. RESULTS: Mean age was 74.4±8.4years. Ninety-one (61%) patients were hypo- or normovolemic (relative fluid overload [Rel. FO] -0.7±5.7%) while 59 (39%) patients presented with fluid overload (Rel. FO 11.5±2.7%). During a median follow-up of 24.3months (interquartile range: 19.8-33.2), 34% of patients reached the combined end point. Multivariate Cox hazard analysis identified fluid overload (hazard ratio: 3.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.68-5.68; p<0.001) as an independent predictor of adverse outcome. Patients with fluid overload and normal renal function showed a worse event-free survival compared to the subgroup with normohydration and impaired renal function (log-rank: p=0.042). CONCLUSION: HFpEF patients with measurable fluid overload face a dismal prognosis as compared to euvolemic patients. Our data, while preliminary, suggest that patients with fluid overload may face a better outcome under continued fluid removal irrespective of changes in eGFR.
Authors: S Wieskotten; S Heinke; P Wabel; U Moissl; J Becker; M Pirlich; M Keymling; R Isermann Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2008-05-07 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Michael R Zile; Philip B Adamson; Yong K Cho; Tom D Bennett; Robert C Bourge; Mark F Aaron; Juan M Aranda; William T Abraham; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Fred J Kueffer Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2011-02-26 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Hans L Hillege; Dorothea Nitsch; Marc A Pfeffer; Karl Swedberg; John J V McMurray; Salim Yusuf; Christopher B Granger; Eric L Michelson; Jan Ostergren; Jan Hein Cornel; Dick de Zeeuw; Stuart Pocock; Dirk J van Veldhuisen Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-02-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Erin D Unger; Ruth F Dubin; Rajat Deo; Vistasp Daruwalla; Julie L Friedman; Crystal Medina; Lauren Beussink; Benjamin H Freed; Sanjiv J Shah Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Gaspare Parrinello; Stephen J Greene; Daniele Torres; Michael Alderman; Joseph Vincent Bonventre; Pietro Di Pasquale; Luna Gargani; Anju Nohria; Gregg C Fonarow; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Javed Butler; Salvatore Paterna; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: C Charles Jain; Juerg Tschirren; Yogesh N V Reddy; Vojtech Melenovsky; Margaret Redfield; Barry A Borlaug Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-11-17
Authors: Katharina Dörr; Michael Kammer; Roman Reindl-Schwaighofer; Matthias Lorenz; Rodrig Marculescu; Marko Poglitsch; Dietrich Beitzke; Rainer Oberbauer Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-04-26
Authors: Marlies Antlanger; Stefan Aschauer; Andreas A Kammerlander; Franz Duca; Marcus D Säemann; Diana Bonderman; Julia Mascherbauer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 4.379