Jozine M Ter Maaten1,2, Veena S Rao1,3, Jennifer S Hanberg1, F Perry Wilson1,4, Lavanya Bellumkonda4, Mahlet Assefa1, J Sam Broughton1, Julie D'Ambrosi3, W H Wilson Tang5, Kevin Damman2, Adriaan A Voors2, David H Ellison6, Jeffrey M Testani1,4. 1. Program of Applied Translational Research, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 2. Department of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Pharmacy Services, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 5. Section of Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Loop diuretic resistance is a common barrier to effective decongestion in acute heart failure (AHF), and is associated with poor outcome. Specific mechanisms underlying diuretic resistance are currently unknown in contemporary AHF patients. We therefore aimed to determine the relative importance of defects in diuretic delivery vs. renal tubular response in determining diuretic response (DR) in AHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty AHF patients treated with intravenous bumetanide underwent a 6-h timed urine collection for sodium and bumetanide clearance. Whole-kidney DR was defined as sodium excreted per doubling of administered loop diuretic and represents the sum of defects in drug delivery and renal tubular response. Tubular DR, defined as sodium excreted per doubling of renally cleared (urinary) loop diuretic, captures resistance specifically in the renal tubule. Median administered bumetanide dose was 3.0 (2.0-4.0) mg with 52 (33-77)% of the drug excreted into the urine. Significant between-patient variability was present as the administered dose only explained 39% of variability in the quantity of bumetanide in urine. Cumulatively, factors related to drug delivery such as renal bumetanide clearance, administered dose, and urea clearance explained 28% of the variance in whole-kidney DR. However, resistance at the level of the renal tubule (tubular DR) explained 71% of the variability in whole-kidney DR. CONCLUSION: Defects at the level of the renal tubule are substantially more important than reduced diuretic delivery in determining diuretic resistance in patients with AHF.
BACKGROUND: Loop diuretic resistance is a common barrier to effective decongestion in acute heart failure (AHF), and is associated with poor outcome. Specific mechanisms underlying diuretic resistance are currently unknown in contemporary AHF patients. We therefore aimed to determine the relative importance of defects in diuretic delivery vs. renal tubular response in determining diuretic response (DR) in AHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty AHF patients treated with intravenous bumetanide underwent a 6-h timed urine collection for sodium and bumetanide clearance. Whole-kidney DR was defined as sodium excreted per doubling of administered loop diuretic and represents the sum of defects in drug delivery and renal tubular response. Tubular DR, defined as sodium excreted per doubling of renally cleared (urinary) loop diuretic, captures resistance specifically in the renal tubule. Median administered bumetanide dose was 3.0 (2.0-4.0) mg with 52 (33-77)% of the drug excreted into the urine. Significant between-patient variability was present as the administered dose only explained 39% of variability in the quantity of bumetanide in urine. Cumulatively, factors related to drug delivery such as renal bumetanide clearance, administered dose, and urea clearance explained 28% of the variance in whole-kidney DR. However, resistance at the level of the renal tubule (tubular DR) explained 71% of the variability in whole-kidney DR. CONCLUSION: Defects at the level of the renal tubule are substantially more important than reduced diuretic delivery in determining diuretic resistance in patients with AHF.
Authors: Jozine M ter Maaten; Allison M Dunning; Mattia A E Valente; Kevin Damman; Justin A Ezekowitz; Robert M Califf; Randall C Starling; Peter van der Meer; Christopher M O'Connor; Phillip J Schulte; Jeffrey M Testani; Adrian F Hernandez; W H Wilson Tang; Adriaan A Voors Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: G Michael Felker; Kerry L Lee; David A Bull; Margaret M Redfield; Lynne W Stevenson; Steven R Goldsmith; Martin M LeWinter; Anita Deswal; Jean L Rouleau; Elizabeth O Ofili; Kevin J Anstrom; Adrian F Hernandez; Steven E McNulty; Eric J Velazquez; Abdallah G Kfoury; Horng H Chen; Michael M Givertz; Marc J Semigran; Bradley A Bart; Alice M Mascette; Eugene Braunwald; Christopher M O'Connor Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mattia A E Valente; Adriaan A Voors; Kevin Damman; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen; Barrie M Massie; Christopher M O'Connor; Marco Metra; Piotr Ponikowski; John R Teerlink; Gad Cotter; Beth Davison; John G F Cleland; Michael M Givertz; Daniel M Bloomfield; Mona Fiuzat; Howard C Dittrich; Hans L Hillege Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-02-28 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Adriaan A Voors; Beth A Davison; John R Teerlink; G Michael Felker; Gad Cotter; Gerasimos Filippatos; Barry H Greenberg; Peter S Pang; Bruce Levin; Tsushung A Hua; Thomas Severin; Piotr Ponikowski; Marco Metra Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Veena S Rao; Noah Planavsky; Jennifer S Hanberg; Tariq Ahmad; Meredith A Brisco-Bacik; Francis P Wilson; Daniel Jacoby; Michael Chen; W H Wilson Tang; David Z I Cherney; David H Ellison; Jeffrey M Testani Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Zachary L Cox; Krishna Sury; Veena S Rao; Juan B Ivey-Miranda; Matthew Griffin; Devin Mahoney; Nicole Gomez; James H Fleming; Lesley A Inker; Steven G Coca; Jeff Turner; F Perry Wilson; Jeffrey M Testani Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Antonios Charokopos; Matthew Griffin; Veena S Rao; Lesley Inker; Krishna Sury; Jennifer Asher; Jeffrey Turner; Devin Mahoney; Zachary L Cox; F Perry Wilson; Jeffrey M Testani Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Johanna E Emmens; Martin H de Borst; Eva M Boorsma; Kevin Damman; Gerjan Navis; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Kenneth Dickstein; Stefan D Anker; Chim C Lang; Gerasimos Filippatos; Marco Metra; Nilesh J Samani; Piotr Ponikowski; Leong L Ng; Adriaan A Voors; Jozine M Ter Maaten Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Juan B Ivey-Miranda; Brendan Stewart; Zachary L Cox; Wendy McCallum; Christopher Maulion; Olyvia Gleason; Grace Meegan; Jonathan G Amatruda; Julieta Moreno-Villagomez; Devin Mahoney; Jeffrey M Turner; F Perry Wilson; Michelle M Estrella; Michael G Shlipak; Veena S Rao; Jeffrey M Testani Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 8.790