ESC heart failure · 2024
Analysis of the usefulness and benefits of ultrafiltration in cardiorenal syndrome: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Guerrero Cervera Borja, López-Vilella Raquel, Donoso Trenado Víctor, Peris-Fernández María, Carmona Paula, Soldevila Amparo, Tormo Sergi, Devesa Ramón, Montero Hernández María Jesús, Martínez Dolz Luis, Hernández Jaras Julio, Sánchez-Pérez Pilar, Almenar-Bonet Luis
Аннотация
AIMS: Cardiac decompensation in cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) results in systemic congestion usually treated with diuretics. When despite high doses of diuretics, response is poor, ultrafiltration (UF) appears to be a useful and safe technique. The aim of the study was to analyse, by means of a systematic review, the efficacy and safety of UF versus conventional diuretic treatment.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Search of the main databases (Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) identifying comparative studies of UF versus diuretic therapy, from 2000 to the present. After screening the studies, 13 studies were analysed; 1100 patients (UF: 532, diuretic treatment: 568). Renal function: UF showed a trend to lower creatinine at discharge (SME = -0.68; 95% CI -1.50 to 0.13; I2 = 97%) with no difference in glomerular filtration rate (SME = 0.05; 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27; I2 = 0%). Diuretic response: With UF, there was a trend towards greater weight loss (SME = 1.82; 95% CI -0.79 to 4.42; I2 = 99.7%) and greater volume removed (SME = 3.04; 95% CI -2.13 to 8.20; I2 = 99.8%). Morbidity and mortality: No difference in days of hospital stay (LogOR = -0.14; 95% CI -0.52 to 0.23; I2 = 66.9%) and mortality at 1 month (LogOR = -0.04; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.44; I2 = 0%) but reduction in readmissions in patients with UF (LogOR = -0.60; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.26; I2 = 40.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: In decompensated HF and CRS with inadequate diuretic response, UF versus diuretic intensification is an effective and safe option; it reduces readmissions with a tendency to decrease weight, creatinine levels and increase volume depletion without affecting mortality. Prospective randomised studies with a sufficient number of patients are needed to corroborate these results.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Search of the main databases (Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) identifying comparative studies of UF versus diuretic therapy, from 2000 to the present. After screening the studies, 13 studies were analysed; 1100 patients (UF: 532, diuretic treatment: 568). Renal function: UF showed a trend to lower creatinine at discharge (SME = -0.68; 95% CI -1.50 to 0.13; I2 = 97%) with no difference in glomerular filtration rate (SME = 0.05; 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27; I2 = 0%). Diuretic response: With UF, there was a trend towards greater weight loss (SME = 1.82; 95% CI -0.79 to 4.42; I2 = 99.7%) and greater volume removed (SME = 3.04; 95% CI -2.13 to 8.20; I2 = 99.8%). Morbidity and mortality: No difference in days of hospital stay (LogOR = -0.14; 95% CI -0.52 to 0.23; I2 = 66.9%) and mortality at 1 month (LogOR = -0.04; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.44; I2 = 0%) but reduction in readmissions in patients with UF (LogOR = -0.60; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.26; I2 = 40.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: In decompensated HF and CRS with inadequate diuretic response, UF versus diuretic intensification is an effective and safe option; it reduces readmissions with a tendency to decrease weight, creatinine levels and increase volume depletion without affecting mortality. Prospective randomised studies with a sufficient number of patients are needed to corroborate these results.