NEW ORLEANS – Fatigue: Take Control (FTC), a 6-week group education and behavioral program widely used to address fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis, was comparable to a general MS education program for decreasing fatigue and improving self-efficacy in a randomized, controlled study.

In 218 subjects randomized to participate in either FTC or a general MS education program (MS: Take Control, or MSTC), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale scores improved significantly, compared with baseline and regardless of group assignment; there was no difference between the groups at visit 6 (mean change, –4.5 and –3.6 in the FTC and MSTC groups, respectively), Cinda L. Hugos of the VA Portland (Ore.) Health Care System and her colleagues reported at a meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

©RusN/Thinkstock.com

Multiple Sclerosis Self-Efficacy scale scores did, however, improve significantly in the FTC group vs. the MSTC group (mean increase of 45.5 vs. a decrease of 15.8), but the improvement was not maintained at 6 months, the investigators reported in a poster at the meeting.

The two groups had comparable baseline characteristics, with a mean age of nearly 54 years, as well as similar mean time since diagnosis (12.5 years), self-administered Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (5.2), and demographics.

Fatigue is common in MS patients, occurring in up to 95% of patients, and many report that it is the most disabling symptom. FTC, which addresses medical management of fatigue, exercise, environment, and changes and choices with respect to energy and fatigue control, is often used by chapters of the National MS Society, but its effectiveness for decreasing fatigue or improving self-efficacy has not been proven, the investigators noted.

To determine if FTC decreases fatigue and increases self-efficacy, compared with a general MS education program that addresses issues such as nutrition, emotional health, cognitive problems, and fitness, the investigators randomized subjects at four sites in groups of between 3 and 10 participants to either an FTC or MSTC group. All subjects had moderate to severe fatigue. Those with pregnancy, severe depression, uncontrolled problems that would limit participation, relapse in the prior month, or initiation of a new disease-modifying treatment within the prior 3 months were excluded.

“Both FTC and MSTC structured small group programs were associated with improved self-reported fatigue at program completion and at 3- and 6-month follow-up, but there were no significant differences in fatigue scores between FTC and MSTC participants at any time point,” the investigators wrote.

Self-efficacy was significantly better among FTC participants at program completion, but was not sustained, they noted, concluding that the findings suggest that “participating in structured small group programs is associated with prolonged reductions in fatigue in people with MS and that supporting goal setting provides short-term improvements in self-efficacy.”

Further research is needed to determine whether booster sessions would be beneficial for sustaining improvements in self-efficacy, they added.

This study was supported by the Rehabilitation, Research, & Development Service of the Veterans Affairs Office of Research & Development. The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Fatigue: Take Control (FTC), a 6-week group education and behavioral program widely used to address fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis, was comparable to a general MS education program for decreasing fatigue and improving self-efficacy in a randomized, controlled study.

In 218 subjects randomized to participate in either FTC or a general MS education program (MS: Take Control, or MSTC), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale scores improved significantly, compared with baseline and regardless of group assignment; there was no difference between the groups at visit 6 (mean change, –4.5 and –3.6 in the FTC and MSTC groups, respectively), Cinda L. Hugos of the VA Portland (Ore.) Health Care System and her colleagues reported at a meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

©RusN/Thinkstock.com

Multiple Sclerosis Self-Efficacy scale scores did, however, improve significantly in the FTC group vs. the MSTC group (mean increase of 45.5 vs. a decrease of 15.8), but the improvement was not maintained at 6 months, the investigators reported in a poster at the meeting.

The two groups had comparable baseline characteristics, with a mean age of nearly 54 years, as well as similar mean time since diagnosis (12.5 years), self-administered Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (5.2), and demographics.

Fatigue is common in MS patients, occurring in up to 95% of patients, and many report that it is the most disabling symptom. FTC, which addresses medical management of fatigue, exercise, environment, and changes and choices with respect to energy and fatigue control, is often used by chapters of the National MS Society, but its effectiveness for decreasing fatigue or improving self-efficacy has not been proven, the investigators noted.

To determine if FTC decreases fatigue and increases self-efficacy, compared with a general MS education program that addresses issues such as nutrition, emotional health, cognitive problems, and fitness, the investigators randomized subjects at four sites in groups of between 3 and 10 participants to either an FTC or MSTC group. All subjects had moderate to severe fatigue. Those with pregnancy, severe depression, uncontrolled problems that would limit participation, relapse in the prior month, or initiation of a new disease-modifying treatment within the prior 3 months were excluded.

“Both FTC and MSTC structured small group programs were associated with improved self-reported fatigue at program completion and at 3- and 6-month follow-up, but there were no significant differences in fatigue scores between FTC and MSTC participants at any time point,” the investigators wrote.

Self-efficacy was significantly better among FTC participants at program completion, but was not sustained, they noted, concluding that the findings suggest that “participating in structured small group programs is associated with prolonged reductions in fatigue in people with MS and that supporting goal setting provides short-term improvements in self-efficacy.”

Further research is needed to determine whether booster sessions would be beneficial for sustaining improvements in self-efficacy, they added.

This study was supported by the Rehabilitation, Research, & Development Service of the Veterans Affairs Office of Research & Development. The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Fatigue: Take Control (FTC), a 6-week group education and behavioral program widely used to address fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis, was comparable to a general MS education program for decreasing fatigue and improving self-efficacy in a randomized, controlled study.

In 218 subjects randomized to participate in either FTC or a general MS education program (MS: Take Control, or MSTC), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale scores improved significantly, compared with baseline and regardless of group assignment; there was no difference between the groups at visit 6 (mean change, –4.5 and –3.6 in the FTC and MSTC groups, respectively), Cinda L. Hugos of the VA Portland (Ore.) Health Care System and her colleagues reported at a meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

©RusN/Thinkstock.com

Multiple Sclerosis Self-Efficacy scale scores did, however, improve significantly in the FTC group vs. the MSTC group (mean increase of 45.5 vs. a decrease of 15.8), but the improvement was not maintained at 6 months, the investigators reported in a poster at the meeting.

The two groups had comparable baseline characteristics, with a mean age of nearly 54 years, as well as similar mean time since diagnosis (12.5 years), self-administered Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (5.2), and demographics.

Fatigue is common in MS patients, occurring in up to 95% of patients, and many report that it is the most disabling symptom. FTC, which addresses medical management of fatigue, exercise, environment, and changes and choices with respect to energy and fatigue control, is often used by chapters of the National MS Society, but its effectiveness for decreasing fatigue or improving self-efficacy has not been proven, the investigators noted.

To determine if FTC decreases fatigue and increases self-efficacy, compared with a general MS education program that addresses issues such as nutrition, emotional health, cognitive problems, and fitness, the investigators randomized subjects at four sites in groups of between 3 and 10 participants to either an FTC or MSTC group. All subjects had moderate to severe fatigue. Those with pregnancy, severe depression, uncontrolled problems that would limit participation, relapse in the prior month, or initiation of a new disease-modifying treatment within the prior 3 months were excluded.

“Both FTC and MSTC structured small group programs were associated with improved self-reported fatigue at program completion and at 3- and 6-month follow-up, but there were no significant differences in fatigue scores between FTC and MSTC participants at any time point,” the investigators wrote.

Self-efficacy was significantly better among FTC participants at program completion, but was not sustained, they noted, concluding that the findings suggest that “participating in structured small group programs is associated with prolonged reductions in fatigue in people with MS and that supporting goal setting provides short-term improvements in self-efficacy.”

Further research is needed to determine whether booster sessions would be beneficial for sustaining improvements in self-efficacy, they added.

This study was supported by the Rehabilitation, Research, & Development Service of the Veterans Affairs Office of Research & Development. The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Because the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is elevated among young women diagnosed with breast cancer, guidelines recommend carrier testing for women diagnosed with this disease at age 50 years or younger.¹ Are women being tested, however, and what are their treatment decisions surrounding those test results? The Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWBCS) seeks to answer such questions.

Details of the study
Study investigators recruited women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger from 11 academic and community hospitals in the United States and Canada beginning in 2006. There were 897 evaluable participants who were recruited between 2006 and 2014. Their mean age at diagnosis was 35.5 years and 86.1% of them were white non-Hispanic. A respective 84.5% and 99.8% of women had at least a college education and were insured.

Overall, BRCA testing was performed within 1 year of breast cancer diagnosis in 87% of participants, with rates rising from 77% in 2006 to 95% in 2013. Among participants tested, 7.6% had a BRCA1 mutation, 4.5% had a BRCA2 mutation, 4.6% had an indeterminate result of unknown clinical significance, and 81.3% had a negative test result.

A total of 86.4% of women found to be mutation carriers proceeded with risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; 51.2% found not to be mutation carriers had this same prophylactic surgery.  

What this evidence means for practice
Although it is encouraging to see that the proportion of young women with breast cancer who are receiving counseling and genetic testing is rising, the findings from this study of highly educated, largely white and affluent women is not generalizable to all US women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.
     That more than half of BRCA-negative women in this study chose bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, a procedure not recommended in this population, is concerning, and reflects nationwide trends.² The increasing use of next-generation sequencing (which yields information on moderate- and low-penetrance genes in addition to BRCA status) means that women and their providers increasingly are being confronted with genetic testing results that call for formal genetics expertise. Unfortunately, genetics counselors remain in short supply and many clinicians without specific genetics training are offering these tests. As editorialists appropriately point out, these trends may further increase the number of relatively low-risk women proceeding with unwarranted bilateral mastectomy.³ In my practice, I continue to refer women whose family or personal histories indicate high-risk status to a cancer genetics counselor for formal counseling and possible testing.
—Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Because the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is elevated among young women diagnosed with breast cancer, guidelines recommend carrier testing for women diagnosed with this disease at age 50 years or younger.¹ Are women being tested, however, and what are their treatment decisions surrounding those test results? The Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWBCS) seeks to answer such questions.

Details of the study
Study investigators recruited women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger from 11 academic and community hospitals in the United States and Canada beginning in 2006. There were 897 evaluable participants who were recruited between 2006 and 2014. Their mean age at diagnosis was 35.5 years and 86.1% of them were white non-Hispanic. A respective 84.5% and 99.8% of women had at least a college education and were insured.

Overall, BRCA testing was performed within 1 year of breast cancer diagnosis in 87% of participants, with rates rising from 77% in 2006 to 95% in 2013. Among participants tested, 7.6% had a BRCA1 mutation, 4.5% had a BRCA2 mutation, 4.6% had an indeterminate result of unknown clinical significance, and 81.3% had a negative test result.

A total of 86.4% of women found to be mutation carriers proceeded with risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; 51.2% found not to be mutation carriers had this same prophylactic surgery.  

What this evidence means for practice
Although it is encouraging to see that the proportion of young women with breast cancer who are receiving counseling and genetic testing is rising, the findings from this study of highly educated, largely white and affluent women is not generalizable to all US women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.
     That more than half of BRCA-negative women in this study chose bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, a procedure not recommended in this population, is concerning, and reflects nationwide trends.² The increasing use of next-generation sequencing (which yields information on moderate- and low-penetrance genes in addition to BRCA status) means that women and their providers increasingly are being confronted with genetic testing results that call for formal genetics expertise. Unfortunately, genetics counselors remain in short supply and many clinicians without specific genetics training are offering these tests. As editorialists appropriately point out, these trends may further increase the number of relatively low-risk women proceeding with unwarranted bilateral mastectomy.³ In my practice, I continue to refer women whose family or personal histories indicate high-risk status to a cancer genetics counselor for formal counseling and possible testing.
—Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Because the prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations is elevated among young women diagnosed with breast cancer, guidelines recommend carrier testing for women diagnosed with this disease at age 50 years or younger.¹ Are women being tested, however, and what are their treatment decisions surrounding those test results? The Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWBCS) seeks to answer such questions.

Details of the study
Study investigators recruited women diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger from 11 academic and community hospitals in the United States and Canada beginning in 2006. There were 897 evaluable participants who were recruited between 2006 and 2014. Their mean age at diagnosis was 35.5 years and 86.1% of them were white non-Hispanic. A respective 84.5% and 99.8% of women had at least a college education and were insured.

Overall, BRCA testing was performed within 1 year of breast cancer diagnosis in 87% of participants, with rates rising from 77% in 2006 to 95% in 2013. Among participants tested, 7.6% had a BRCA1 mutation, 4.5% had a BRCA2 mutation, 4.6% had an indeterminate result of unknown clinical significance, and 81.3% had a negative test result.

A total of 86.4% of women found to be mutation carriers proceeded with risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy; 51.2% found not to be mutation carriers had this same prophylactic surgery.  

What this evidence means for practice
Although it is encouraging to see that the proportion of young women with breast cancer who are receiving counseling and genetic testing is rising, the findings from this study of highly educated, largely white and affluent women is not generalizable to all US women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.
     That more than half of BRCA-negative women in this study chose bilateral prophylactic mastectomy, a procedure not recommended in this population, is concerning, and reflects nationwide trends.² The increasing use of next-generation sequencing (which yields information on moderate- and low-penetrance genes in addition to BRCA status) means that women and their providers increasingly are being confronted with genetic testing results that call for formal genetics expertise. Unfortunately, genetics counselors remain in short supply and many clinicians without specific genetics training are offering these tests. As editorialists appropriately point out, these trends may further increase the number of relatively low-risk women proceeding with unwarranted bilateral mastectomy.³ In my practice, I continue to refer women whose family or personal histories indicate high-risk status to a cancer genetics counselor for formal counseling and possible testing.
—Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Sacroiliitis observed in patients with axial spondyloarthritis more often regressed rather than progressed on radiography over nearly 5 years of follow-up of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) cohort, which lead author Dr. Alexandre Sepriano and his colleagues called “strange” and “sobering.”

The findings call into question the reliability of plain pelvic radiographs for detecting subtle change in sacroiliitis and should prompt the evaluation of alternative imaging modalities such as MRI and low-dose CT, according to Dr. Sepriano of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center and his associates.

©Rocky89/Thinkstock.com

Determining the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis is prognostically relevant and can pave the way for treatment with biologics, but ambiguity in making this decision and in tracking progression has been revealed in the large inter-and intrareader variability found in previous studies. Furthermore, previous studies tracking progression of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to radiographic axSpA have addressed only disease progression and ignored regression. While regression is likely to be rare, it cannot be ignored from a methodologic standpoint, the investigators wrote.

The researchers therefore set out in the current study to assess positive and negative changes in sacroiliitis on plain pelvic radiographs over time in 975 patients from the ASAS cohort who had chronic back pain of unknown origin or undiagnosed peripheral symptoms (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Feb 22. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208964).

Of the 357 of the patients who had paired plain pelvic radiographs available at baseline and follow-up, 17.4% (62/357) fulfilled the criteria for radiographic axSpA at baseline, as defined by modified New York criteria (mNY). At a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, this figure had risen to 22.4% (80/357), suggesting a net progression of 5%.

However, when the authors cross-tabulated their figures, more than half (36/62) of the patients considered mNY positive at baseline were assessed as mNY negative at follow-up. This would mean that radiographic sacroiliitis would have regressed in 58% of the cases; conversely, only 54 of 295 patients (18.3%) became mNY positive at follow-up.

“If only positive change (progression) is valued and negative change is ignored, one would disregard measurement error and spuriously attribute part of the observed positive change to real progression,” the research team explained. “The most likely explanation of our strange and extreme observation is that subtle radiographic progression (the signal) – if truly present – cannot be reliably distinguished from measurement error (the noise). These sobering data clearly illustrate that more research is needed in visualising progression in axSpA.”

ASAS funded the study. The authors had no competing interests to declare.

Sacroiliitis observed in patients with axial spondyloarthritis more often regressed rather than progressed on radiography over nearly 5 years of follow-up of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) cohort, which lead author Dr. Alexandre Sepriano and his colleagues called “strange” and “sobering.”

The findings call into question the reliability of plain pelvic radiographs for detecting subtle change in sacroiliitis and should prompt the evaluation of alternative imaging modalities such as MRI and low-dose CT, according to Dr. Sepriano of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center and his associates.

©Rocky89/Thinkstock.com

Determining the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis is prognostically relevant and can pave the way for treatment with biologics, but ambiguity in making this decision and in tracking progression has been revealed in the large inter-and intrareader variability found in previous studies. Furthermore, previous studies tracking progression of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to radiographic axSpA have addressed only disease progression and ignored regression. While regression is likely to be rare, it cannot be ignored from a methodologic standpoint, the investigators wrote.

The researchers therefore set out in the current study to assess positive and negative changes in sacroiliitis on plain pelvic radiographs over time in 975 patients from the ASAS cohort who had chronic back pain of unknown origin or undiagnosed peripheral symptoms (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Feb 22. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208964).

Of the 357 of the patients who had paired plain pelvic radiographs available at baseline and follow-up, 17.4% (62/357) fulfilled the criteria for radiographic axSpA at baseline, as defined by modified New York criteria (mNY). At a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, this figure had risen to 22.4% (80/357), suggesting a net progression of 5%.

However, when the authors cross-tabulated their figures, more than half (36/62) of the patients considered mNY positive at baseline were assessed as mNY negative at follow-up. This would mean that radiographic sacroiliitis would have regressed in 58% of the cases; conversely, only 54 of 295 patients (18.3%) became mNY positive at follow-up.

“If only positive change (progression) is valued and negative change is ignored, one would disregard measurement error and spuriously attribute part of the observed positive change to real progression,” the research team explained. “The most likely explanation of our strange and extreme observation is that subtle radiographic progression (the signal) – if truly present – cannot be reliably distinguished from measurement error (the noise). These sobering data clearly illustrate that more research is needed in visualising progression in axSpA.”

ASAS funded the study. The authors had no competing interests to declare.

Sacroiliitis observed in patients with axial spondyloarthritis more often regressed rather than progressed on radiography over nearly 5 years of follow-up of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) cohort, which lead author Dr. Alexandre Sepriano and his colleagues called “strange” and “sobering.”

The findings call into question the reliability of plain pelvic radiographs for detecting subtle change in sacroiliitis and should prompt the evaluation of alternative imaging modalities such as MRI and low-dose CT, according to Dr. Sepriano of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center and his associates.

©Rocky89/Thinkstock.com

Determining the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis is prognostically relevant and can pave the way for treatment with biologics, but ambiguity in making this decision and in tracking progression has been revealed in the large inter-and intrareader variability found in previous studies. Furthermore, previous studies tracking progression of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) to radiographic axSpA have addressed only disease progression and ignored regression. While regression is likely to be rare, it cannot be ignored from a methodologic standpoint, the investigators wrote.

The researchers therefore set out in the current study to assess positive and negative changes in sacroiliitis on plain pelvic radiographs over time in 975 patients from the ASAS cohort who had chronic back pain of unknown origin or undiagnosed peripheral symptoms (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Feb 22. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208964).

Of the 357 of the patients who had paired plain pelvic radiographs available at baseline and follow-up, 17.4% (62/357) fulfilled the criteria for radiographic axSpA at baseline, as defined by modified New York criteria (mNY). At a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, this figure had risen to 22.4% (80/357), suggesting a net progression of 5%.

However, when the authors cross-tabulated their figures, more than half (36/62) of the patients considered mNY positive at baseline were assessed as mNY negative at follow-up. This would mean that radiographic sacroiliitis would have regressed in 58% of the cases; conversely, only 54 of 295 patients (18.3%) became mNY positive at follow-up.

“If only positive change (progression) is valued and negative change is ignored, one would disregard measurement error and spuriously attribute part of the observed positive change to real progression,” the research team explained. “The most likely explanation of our strange and extreme observation is that subtle radiographic progression (the signal) – if truly present – cannot be reliably distinguished from measurement error (the noise). These sobering data clearly illustrate that more research is needed in visualising progression in axSpA.”

ASAS funded the study. The authors had no competing interests to declare.

For the first time, cardiologists have characterized the adaptive cardiac remodeling in a large cohort of National Basketball Association players, which establishes a normative database and allows physicians to distinguish it from occult pathologic changes that may precipitate sudden cardiac death, according to an imaging study.

“We hope that the present data will help to focus decision making and improve clinical acumen for the purpose of primary prevention of cardiac emergencies in U.S. basketball players and in the athletic community at large,” said Dr. David J. Engel and his associates of Columbia University, New York.

©Fuse/Thinkstock

Until now, most of the literature concerning the structural features of the athletic heart has been based on European studies, where comprehensive cardiac screening of all elite athletes is mandatory. The typical sports activities and the demographics of athletes in the U.S. are different, and their cardiologic profiles have not been well studied because detailed cardiac examinations are not compulsory. But the NBA recently mandated that all athletes undergo annual preseason medical evaluations including stress echocardiograms, and allowed the division of cardiology at Columbia to assess the results each year.

“A detailed understanding of normal and expected cardiac remodeling in U.S. basketball players has significant clinical importance given that the incidence of sports-related sudden cardiac death in the U.S. is highest among basketball players and that the most common cause ... in this population is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy,” the investigators noted.

Their analysis of all 526 ECGs performed on NBA players during a 1-year period “will provide an invaluable frame of reference to enhance player safety for the large group of U.S. basketball players in training at all skill levels, and in the athletic community at large,” they said.

The study participants were aged 18-39 years (mean age, 25.7 years). Roughly 77% were African American, 20% were white, 2% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian or other ethnicities. The mean height was 200.2 cm (6’7”).

Left ventricular cavity size was larger than that in the general population, but LV size was proportional to the athletes’ large body size. “Scaling LV size to body size is vitally important in the cardiac evaluation of basketball players, whose heights extend to 218 cm and body surface areas to 2.8 m²,” Dr. Engel and his associates said (JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0252).

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was identified in only 27% of the athletes. African Americans had increased indices of LVH, compared with whites, and had a higher incidence of nondilated concentric hypertrophy, while whites showed predominantly eccentric dilated hypertrophy. These findings should help clinicians recognize genuine hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which is a contraindication to participating in all but the most low-intensity competitive sports.

Most of the participants had a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and all showed normal augmentation of LV systolic function with exercise.

Aortic root diameter was larger than that in the general population but similar to that in other elite athletes. Surprisingly, aortic root diameter increased with increasing body size only to a certain point, reaching a plateau at 31-35 mm. Fewer than 5% of the participants had an aortic root diameter of 40 mm or more, and the maximal diameter was 42 mm. “These data have important implications in the evaluation of exceptionally large athletes and question the applicability in individuals with significantly increased biometrics of the traditional formula to estimate aortic root diameter that assumes a linear association between [it] and body surface area,” they noted.

“We hope that the results of this study will assist recognition of cardiac pathologic change and provide a framework to help avoid unnecessary exclusions of athletes from competition. We believe that these data have additional applicability to other sports that preselect for athletes with height, such as volleyball, rowing, and track and field,” Dr. Engel and his associates added.

This study was supported by the National Basketball Association as part of a medical services agreement with Columbia University. Dr. Engel and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

For the first time, cardiologists have characterized the adaptive cardiac remodeling in a large cohort of National Basketball Association players, which establishes a normative database and allows physicians to distinguish it from occult pathologic changes that may precipitate sudden cardiac death, according to an imaging study.

“We hope that the present data will help to focus decision making and improve clinical acumen for the purpose of primary prevention of cardiac emergencies in U.S. basketball players and in the athletic community at large,” said Dr. David J. Engel and his associates of Columbia University, New York.

©Fuse/Thinkstock

Until now, most of the literature concerning the structural features of the athletic heart has been based on European studies, where comprehensive cardiac screening of all elite athletes is mandatory. The typical sports activities and the demographics of athletes in the U.S. are different, and their cardiologic profiles have not been well studied because detailed cardiac examinations are not compulsory. But the NBA recently mandated that all athletes undergo annual preseason medical evaluations including stress echocardiograms, and allowed the division of cardiology at Columbia to assess the results each year.

“A detailed understanding of normal and expected cardiac remodeling in U.S. basketball players has significant clinical importance given that the incidence of sports-related sudden cardiac death in the U.S. is highest among basketball players and that the most common cause ... in this population is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy,” the investigators noted.

Their analysis of all 526 ECGs performed on NBA players during a 1-year period “will provide an invaluable frame of reference to enhance player safety for the large group of U.S. basketball players in training at all skill levels, and in the athletic community at large,” they said.

The study participants were aged 18-39 years (mean age, 25.7 years). Roughly 77% were African American, 20% were white, 2% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian or other ethnicities. The mean height was 200.2 cm (6’7”).

Left ventricular cavity size was larger than that in the general population, but LV size was proportional to the athletes’ large body size. “Scaling LV size to body size is vitally important in the cardiac evaluation of basketball players, whose heights extend to 218 cm and body surface areas to 2.8 m²,” Dr. Engel and his associates said (JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0252).

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was identified in only 27% of the athletes. African Americans had increased indices of LVH, compared with whites, and had a higher incidence of nondilated concentric hypertrophy, while whites showed predominantly eccentric dilated hypertrophy. These findings should help clinicians recognize genuine hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which is a contraindication to participating in all but the most low-intensity competitive sports.

Most of the participants had a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and all showed normal augmentation of LV systolic function with exercise.

Aortic root diameter was larger than that in the general population but similar to that in other elite athletes. Surprisingly, aortic root diameter increased with increasing body size only to a certain point, reaching a plateau at 31-35 mm. Fewer than 5% of the participants had an aortic root diameter of 40 mm or more, and the maximal diameter was 42 mm. “These data have important implications in the evaluation of exceptionally large athletes and question the applicability in individuals with significantly increased biometrics of the traditional formula to estimate aortic root diameter that assumes a linear association between [it] and body surface area,” they noted.

“We hope that the results of this study will assist recognition of cardiac pathologic change and provide a framework to help avoid unnecessary exclusions of athletes from competition. We believe that these data have additional applicability to other sports that preselect for athletes with height, such as volleyball, rowing, and track and field,” Dr. Engel and his associates added.

This study was supported by the National Basketball Association as part of a medical services agreement with Columbia University. Dr. Engel and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

For the first time, cardiologists have characterized the adaptive cardiac remodeling in a large cohort of National Basketball Association players, which establishes a normative database and allows physicians to distinguish it from occult pathologic changes that may precipitate sudden cardiac death, according to an imaging study.

“We hope that the present data will help to focus decision making and improve clinical acumen for the purpose of primary prevention of cardiac emergencies in U.S. basketball players and in the athletic community at large,” said Dr. David J. Engel and his associates of Columbia University, New York.

©Fuse/Thinkstock

Until now, most of the literature concerning the structural features of the athletic heart has been based on European studies, where comprehensive cardiac screening of all elite athletes is mandatory. The typical sports activities and the demographics of athletes in the U.S. are different, and their cardiologic profiles have not been well studied because detailed cardiac examinations are not compulsory. But the NBA recently mandated that all athletes undergo annual preseason medical evaluations including stress echocardiograms, and allowed the division of cardiology at Columbia to assess the results each year.

“A detailed understanding of normal and expected cardiac remodeling in U.S. basketball players has significant clinical importance given that the incidence of sports-related sudden cardiac death in the U.S. is highest among basketball players and that the most common cause ... in this population is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy,” the investigators noted.

Their analysis of all 526 ECGs performed on NBA players during a 1-year period “will provide an invaluable frame of reference to enhance player safety for the large group of U.S. basketball players in training at all skill levels, and in the athletic community at large,” they said.

The study participants were aged 18-39 years (mean age, 25.7 years). Roughly 77% were African American, 20% were white, 2% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian or other ethnicities. The mean height was 200.2 cm (6’7”).

Left ventricular cavity size was larger than that in the general population, but LV size was proportional to the athletes’ large body size. “Scaling LV size to body size is vitally important in the cardiac evaluation of basketball players, whose heights extend to 218 cm and body surface areas to 2.8 m²,” Dr. Engel and his associates said (JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0252).

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was identified in only 27% of the athletes. African Americans had increased indices of LVH, compared with whites, and had a higher incidence of nondilated concentric hypertrophy, while whites showed predominantly eccentric dilated hypertrophy. These findings should help clinicians recognize genuine hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which is a contraindication to participating in all but the most low-intensity competitive sports.

Most of the participants had a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and all showed normal augmentation of LV systolic function with exercise.

Aortic root diameter was larger than that in the general population but similar to that in other elite athletes. Surprisingly, aortic root diameter increased with increasing body size only to a certain point, reaching a plateau at 31-35 mm. Fewer than 5% of the participants had an aortic root diameter of 40 mm or more, and the maximal diameter was 42 mm. “These data have important implications in the evaluation of exceptionally large athletes and question the applicability in individuals with significantly increased biometrics of the traditional formula to estimate aortic root diameter that assumes a linear association between [it] and body surface area,” they noted.

“We hope that the results of this study will assist recognition of cardiac pathologic change and provide a framework to help avoid unnecessary exclusions of athletes from competition. We believe that these data have additional applicability to other sports that preselect for athletes with height, such as volleyball, rowing, and track and field,” Dr. Engel and his associates added.

This study was supported by the National Basketball Association as part of a medical services agreement with Columbia University. Dr. Engel and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

To date, screening has not been found effective in reducing mortality from ovarian cancer. Collaborative trial investigators in the United Kingdom studied postmenopausal women in the general population to assess whether early detection by screening could decrease ovarian cancer mortality.

Details of the study
During 2001 to 2005, more than 200,000 UK postmenopausal women aged 50 to 74 years (mean age at baseline, 60.6 years) were randomly assigned to no screening, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (TVUS), or annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA 125 using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA), which takes into account changes in CA 125 levels over time. When ROCA scores indicated normal risk for ovarian cancer, women were advised to undergo repeat CA 125 assessment in 1 year. Women with intermediate risk were advised to repeat CA 125 assessment in 3 months, while high-risk women were advised to undergo TVUS.

With a median of 11.1 years of follow-up, ovarian cancer (including fallopian tube malignancies) was diagnosed in 1,282 participants (0.6%), with fatal outcomes among the 3 groups as follows: 0.34% in the no-screening group, 0.30% in the TVUS group, and 0.29% in the MMS group. Based on the results of a planned secondary analysis that excluded prevalent cases of ovarian cancer, annual MMS was associated with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% compared with no screening (P = .021). When the mortality reduction was broken down by years of annual screening, 0 to 7 years was associated with an 8% mortality reduction over no screening, and this jumped to 28% for 7 to 14 annual MMS screening years.

The overall average mortality reduction with TVUS compared with no screening was smaller than with MMS. With MMS, the number needed to screen to prevent 1 death from ovarian cancer was 641.

Assessing unnecessary treatment
False-positive screens that resulted in surgical intervention with findings of benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa occurred in 14 and 50 per 10,000 screens in the MMS and TVUS groups, respectively. For each ovarian cancer detected in the MMS and TVUS groups, an additional 2 and 10 women, respectively, underwent surgery based on false-positive results.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
This massive trial’s findings provide optimism that screening for ovarian cancer can indeed reduce mortality from this uncommon but too-often lethal disease. There are unanswered questions, however, which include the cost-effectiveness of MMS screening and how well this strategy can be implemented outside of a highly centralized and controlled clinical trial. While encouraging, these trial results should be viewed as preliminary until additional efficacy and cost-effectiveness data—and guidance from professional organizations—are available.
—ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

To date, screening has not been found effective in reducing mortality from ovarian cancer. Collaborative trial investigators in the United Kingdom studied postmenopausal women in the general population to assess whether early detection by screening could decrease ovarian cancer mortality.

Details of the study
During 2001 to 2005, more than 200,000 UK postmenopausal women aged 50 to 74 years (mean age at baseline, 60.6 years) were randomly assigned to no screening, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (TVUS), or annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA 125 using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA), which takes into account changes in CA 125 levels over time. When ROCA scores indicated normal risk for ovarian cancer, women were advised to undergo repeat CA 125 assessment in 1 year. Women with intermediate risk were advised to repeat CA 125 assessment in 3 months, while high-risk women were advised to undergo TVUS.

With a median of 11.1 years of follow-up, ovarian cancer (including fallopian tube malignancies) was diagnosed in 1,282 participants (0.6%), with fatal outcomes among the 3 groups as follows: 0.34% in the no-screening group, 0.30% in the TVUS group, and 0.29% in the MMS group. Based on the results of a planned secondary analysis that excluded prevalent cases of ovarian cancer, annual MMS was associated with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% compared with no screening (P = .021). When the mortality reduction was broken down by years of annual screening, 0 to 7 years was associated with an 8% mortality reduction over no screening, and this jumped to 28% for 7 to 14 annual MMS screening years.

The overall average mortality reduction with TVUS compared with no screening was smaller than with MMS. With MMS, the number needed to screen to prevent 1 death from ovarian cancer was 641.

Assessing unnecessary treatment
False-positive screens that resulted in surgical intervention with findings of benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa occurred in 14 and 50 per 10,000 screens in the MMS and TVUS groups, respectively. For each ovarian cancer detected in the MMS and TVUS groups, an additional 2 and 10 women, respectively, underwent surgery based on false-positive results.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
This massive trial’s findings provide optimism that screening for ovarian cancer can indeed reduce mortality from this uncommon but too-often lethal disease. There are unanswered questions, however, which include the cost-effectiveness of MMS screening and how well this strategy can be implemented outside of a highly centralized and controlled clinical trial. While encouraging, these trial results should be viewed as preliminary until additional efficacy and cost-effectiveness data—and guidance from professional organizations—are available.
—ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

To date, screening has not been found effective in reducing mortality from ovarian cancer. Collaborative trial investigators in the United Kingdom studied postmenopausal women in the general population to assess whether early detection by screening could decrease ovarian cancer mortality.

Details of the study
During 2001 to 2005, more than 200,000 UK postmenopausal women aged 50 to 74 years (mean age at baseline, 60.6 years) were randomly assigned to no screening, annual transvaginal ultrasound screening (TVUS), or annual multimodal screening (MMS) with serum CA 125 using the Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA), which takes into account changes in CA 125 levels over time. When ROCA scores indicated normal risk for ovarian cancer, women were advised to undergo repeat CA 125 assessment in 1 year. Women with intermediate risk were advised to repeat CA 125 assessment in 3 months, while high-risk women were advised to undergo TVUS.

With a median of 11.1 years of follow-up, ovarian cancer (including fallopian tube malignancies) was diagnosed in 1,282 participants (0.6%), with fatal outcomes among the 3 groups as follows: 0.34% in the no-screening group, 0.30% in the TVUS group, and 0.29% in the MMS group. Based on the results of a planned secondary analysis that excluded prevalent cases of ovarian cancer, annual MMS was associated with an overall average mortality reduction of 20% compared with no screening (P = .021). When the mortality reduction was broken down by years of annual screening, 0 to 7 years was associated with an 8% mortality reduction over no screening, and this jumped to 28% for 7 to 14 annual MMS screening years.

The overall average mortality reduction with TVUS compared with no screening was smaller than with MMS. With MMS, the number needed to screen to prevent 1 death from ovarian cancer was 641.

Assessing unnecessary treatment
False-positive screens that resulted in surgical intervention with findings of benign adnexal pathology or normal adnexa occurred in 14 and 50 per 10,000 screens in the MMS and TVUS groups, respectively. For each ovarian cancer detected in the MMS and TVUS groups, an additional 2 and 10 women, respectively, underwent surgery based on false-positive results.

WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
This massive trial’s findings provide optimism that screening for ovarian cancer can indeed reduce mortality from this uncommon but too-often lethal disease. There are unanswered questions, however, which include the cost-effectiveness of MMS screening and how well this strategy can be implemented outside of a highly centralized and controlled clinical trial. While encouraging, these trial results should be viewed as preliminary until additional efficacy and cost-effectiveness data—and guidance from professional organizations—are available.
—ANDREW M. KAUNITZ, MD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

LOS ANGELES – Hang a do-not-disturb sign on brain arteriovenous malformations.

Patients who underwent invasive interventions to repair an unruptured arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in their brain faced a greater than two-fold increased rate of death or stroke during an average 4 years of follow-up, compared with patients who received medical treatment only with no active intervention, Dr. Christian Stapf reported at the International Stroke Conference.

When analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, for every five AVM patients treated by endovascular surgery, conventional surgery, or radiotherapy, one additional patient died or had a stroke, compared with the death or stroke rate among control patients who received only medical management. When analyzed based on the treatments that patients actually received, the number-needed-to-harm fell to one excess death or stroke for every three AVM patients who underwent an invasive procedure, compared with control patients, reported Dr. Stapf, a professor in the department of neurosciences at the University of Montreal.

The results from A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain AVMs (ARUBA) “show us that we clearly have not been as good as we thought in helping patients against their stroke risk,” said Dr. Stapf in a video interview during the meeting. “Given that the risk of death or stroke was reduced three- to fivefold with no [invasive] treatment and leaving the AVM alone makes us think that we can’t recommend preventive intervention with currently-used techniques. Living with the AVM seems like the far better option.”

The ARUBA study, run at 39 centers in nine countries including 13 U.S. centers, randomized 226 patients with unruptured AVMs before the study’s data safety and monitoring board stopped study enrollment prematurely in April 2013. The study group included 110 patients randomized to receive medical interventions only and 116 randomized to medical intervention plus “best possible” AVM eradication. The exact type of eradication for each patient was left up to local clinicians, who tailored the intervention to address the size, location, and anatomy of each AVM. Medical management included steps such as treatment with antiepileptic drugs to treat seizures, various treatments for headaches, and physiotherapy for patients with neurologic deficits.

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined rate of death or stroke, which occurred in 41 of the 116 patients (35%) randomized to receive an invasive intervention and in 15 of the 110 (14%) randomized to medical treatment only during an average follow-up of 50 months, with many patients followed for 5 years.

When analyzed by the treatment patients actually received, 106 underwent an invasive intervention and 43 of these patients (41%) died or had a stroke, and 120 patients received medical treatments only, of whom 13 (11%) died or had a stroke.

A secondary endpoint was the rate of death or disability after 5-year follow-up, with disability defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 2 or more. This occurred in 38% of the 45 patients who underwent AVM eradication and had this follow-up available, and in 18% of 51 patients who had medial treatment only and received this follow-up.

Interim results from the study came out 2 years ago, with an average follow-up of 33 months (Lancet. 2014 Feb 15;383[9917]:614-21), but the trial was designed to have 5-year follow-up, largely accomplished in the new data reported by Dr. Stapf.

Many clinicians had already abandoned invasive interventions to treat brain AVMs following release of the interim results, and Dr. Stapf predicted that this trend will further strengthen now that the final results are in and confirm the earlier indication of hazard. Until the ARUBA results became available, clinicians had presumed invasive interventions to resolve or minimize malformations were beneficial based on intuition. ARUBA is the first systematic comparison of procedures versus a hands-off approach for brain AVMs, he said.

“Neurologists will now be less likely to refer patients for intervention, and interventionalists will be less enthusiastic to perform procedures,” Dr. Stapf said during the meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association. In addition, anyone now performing an intervention in routine practice would need to consider the possible legal implications if the patient were to have a bad outcome. Dr. Stapf also noted that some professional societies are now considering recommendations against routine interventions. He conceded that some invasive interventions might still occur for selected cases on an investigational basis, but the ARUBA results “set the bar very high against performing any new interventions,” he concluded.

Approximately 3,000 patients annually are newly diagnosed with an unruptured brain AVM in the United States and Canada, he estimated.

ARUBA received no commercial support. Dr. Stapf had no disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LOS ANGELES – Hang a do-not-disturb sign on brain arteriovenous malformations.

Patients who underwent invasive interventions to repair an unruptured arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in their brain faced a greater than two-fold increased rate of death or stroke during an average 4 years of follow-up, compared with patients who received medical treatment only with no active intervention, Dr. Christian Stapf reported at the International Stroke Conference.

When analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, for every five AVM patients treated by endovascular surgery, conventional surgery, or radiotherapy, one additional patient died or had a stroke, compared with the death or stroke rate among control patients who received only medical management. When analyzed based on the treatments that patients actually received, the number-needed-to-harm fell to one excess death or stroke for every three AVM patients who underwent an invasive procedure, compared with control patients, reported Dr. Stapf, a professor in the department of neurosciences at the University of Montreal.

The results from A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain AVMs (ARUBA) “show us that we clearly have not been as good as we thought in helping patients against their stroke risk,” said Dr. Stapf in a video interview during the meeting. “Given that the risk of death or stroke was reduced three- to fivefold with no [invasive] treatment and leaving the AVM alone makes us think that we can’t recommend preventive intervention with currently-used techniques. Living with the AVM seems like the far better option.”

The ARUBA study, run at 39 centers in nine countries including 13 U.S. centers, randomized 226 patients with unruptured AVMs before the study’s data safety and monitoring board stopped study enrollment prematurely in April 2013. The study group included 110 patients randomized to receive medical interventions only and 116 randomized to medical intervention plus “best possible” AVM eradication. The exact type of eradication for each patient was left up to local clinicians, who tailored the intervention to address the size, location, and anatomy of each AVM. Medical management included steps such as treatment with antiepileptic drugs to treat seizures, various treatments for headaches, and physiotherapy for patients with neurologic deficits.

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined rate of death or stroke, which occurred in 41 of the 116 patients (35%) randomized to receive an invasive intervention and in 15 of the 110 (14%) randomized to medical treatment only during an average follow-up of 50 months, with many patients followed for 5 years.

When analyzed by the treatment patients actually received, 106 underwent an invasive intervention and 43 of these patients (41%) died or had a stroke, and 120 patients received medical treatments only, of whom 13 (11%) died or had a stroke.

A secondary endpoint was the rate of death or disability after 5-year follow-up, with disability defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 2 or more. This occurred in 38% of the 45 patients who underwent AVM eradication and had this follow-up available, and in 18% of 51 patients who had medial treatment only and received this follow-up.

Interim results from the study came out 2 years ago, with an average follow-up of 33 months (Lancet. 2014 Feb 15;383[9917]:614-21), but the trial was designed to have 5-year follow-up, largely accomplished in the new data reported by Dr. Stapf.

Many clinicians had already abandoned invasive interventions to treat brain AVMs following release of the interim results, and Dr. Stapf predicted that this trend will further strengthen now that the final results are in and confirm the earlier indication of hazard. Until the ARUBA results became available, clinicians had presumed invasive interventions to resolve or minimize malformations were beneficial based on intuition. ARUBA is the first systematic comparison of procedures versus a hands-off approach for brain AVMs, he said.

“Neurologists will now be less likely to refer patients for intervention, and interventionalists will be less enthusiastic to perform procedures,” Dr. Stapf said during the meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association. In addition, anyone now performing an intervention in routine practice would need to consider the possible legal implications if the patient were to have a bad outcome. Dr. Stapf also noted that some professional societies are now considering recommendations against routine interventions. He conceded that some invasive interventions might still occur for selected cases on an investigational basis, but the ARUBA results “set the bar very high against performing any new interventions,” he concluded.

Approximately 3,000 patients annually are newly diagnosed with an unruptured brain AVM in the United States and Canada, he estimated.

ARUBA received no commercial support. Dr. Stapf had no disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LOS ANGELES – Hang a do-not-disturb sign on brain arteriovenous malformations.

Patients who underwent invasive interventions to repair an unruptured arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in their brain faced a greater than two-fold increased rate of death or stroke during an average 4 years of follow-up, compared with patients who received medical treatment only with no active intervention, Dr. Christian Stapf reported at the International Stroke Conference.

When analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, for every five AVM patients treated by endovascular surgery, conventional surgery, or radiotherapy, one additional patient died or had a stroke, compared with the death or stroke rate among control patients who received only medical management. When analyzed based on the treatments that patients actually received, the number-needed-to-harm fell to one excess death or stroke for every three AVM patients who underwent an invasive procedure, compared with control patients, reported Dr. Stapf, a professor in the department of neurosciences at the University of Montreal.

The results from A Randomized Trial of Unruptured Brain AVMs (ARUBA) “show us that we clearly have not been as good as we thought in helping patients against their stroke risk,” said Dr. Stapf in a video interview during the meeting. “Given that the risk of death or stroke was reduced three- to fivefold with no [invasive] treatment and leaving the AVM alone makes us think that we can’t recommend preventive intervention with currently-used techniques. Living with the AVM seems like the far better option.”

The ARUBA study, run at 39 centers in nine countries including 13 U.S. centers, randomized 226 patients with unruptured AVMs before the study’s data safety and monitoring board stopped study enrollment prematurely in April 2013. The study group included 110 patients randomized to receive medical interventions only and 116 randomized to medical intervention plus “best possible” AVM eradication. The exact type of eradication for each patient was left up to local clinicians, who tailored the intervention to address the size, location, and anatomy of each AVM. Medical management included steps such as treatment with antiepileptic drugs to treat seizures, various treatments for headaches, and physiotherapy for patients with neurologic deficits.

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined rate of death or stroke, which occurred in 41 of the 116 patients (35%) randomized to receive an invasive intervention and in 15 of the 110 (14%) randomized to medical treatment only during an average follow-up of 50 months, with many patients followed for 5 years.

When analyzed by the treatment patients actually received, 106 underwent an invasive intervention and 43 of these patients (41%) died or had a stroke, and 120 patients received medical treatments only, of whom 13 (11%) died or had a stroke.

A secondary endpoint was the rate of death or disability after 5-year follow-up, with disability defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 2 or more. This occurred in 38% of the 45 patients who underwent AVM eradication and had this follow-up available, and in 18% of 51 patients who had medial treatment only and received this follow-up.

Interim results from the study came out 2 years ago, with an average follow-up of 33 months (Lancet. 2014 Feb 15;383[9917]:614-21), but the trial was designed to have 5-year follow-up, largely accomplished in the new data reported by Dr. Stapf.

Many clinicians had already abandoned invasive interventions to treat brain AVMs following release of the interim results, and Dr. Stapf predicted that this trend will further strengthen now that the final results are in and confirm the earlier indication of hazard. Until the ARUBA results became available, clinicians had presumed invasive interventions to resolve or minimize malformations were beneficial based on intuition. ARUBA is the first systematic comparison of procedures versus a hands-off approach for brain AVMs, he said.

“Neurologists will now be less likely to refer patients for intervention, and interventionalists will be less enthusiastic to perform procedures,” Dr. Stapf said during the meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association. In addition, anyone now performing an intervention in routine practice would need to consider the possible legal implications if the patient were to have a bad outcome. Dr. Stapf also noted that some professional societies are now considering recommendations against routine interventions. He conceded that some invasive interventions might still occur for selected cases on an investigational basis, but the ARUBA results “set the bar very high against performing any new interventions,” he concluded.

Approximately 3,000 patients annually are newly diagnosed with an unruptured brain AVM in the United States and Canada, he estimated.

ARUBA received no commercial support. Dr. Stapf had no disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

From the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Abstract

• Objective: To present a review of cardiorenal syndrome type 1 (CRS1).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: Acute kidney injury occurs in approximately one-third of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and the resultant condition was named CRS1. A growing body of literature shows CRS1 patients are at high risk for poor outcomes, and thus there is an urgent need to understand the pathophysiology and subsequently develop effective treatments. In this review we discuss prevalence, proposed pathophysiology including hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic factors, prognosticating variables, data for different treatment strategies, and ongoing clinical trials and highlight questions and problems physicians will face moving forward with this common and challenging condition.
• Conclusion: Further research is needed to understand the pathophysiology of this complex clinical entity and to develop effective treatments.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is an epidemic facing physicians throughout the world. In the United States alone, ADHF accounts for over 1 million hospitalizations annually, with costs in 2012 reaching $30.7 billion [1]. Despite the advances in chronic heart failure management, ADHF continues to be associated with poor outcomes as exemplified by 30-day readmission rates of over 20% and in-hospital mortality rates of 5% to 6%, both of which have not significantly improved over the past 20 years [2,3]. One of the strongest predictors of adverse outcomes in ADHF is renal dysfunction. An analysis from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) revealed the combination of renal dysfunction (creatinine > 2.75 mg/dL and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) > 43 mg/dL) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 115 mm Hg) upon admission was associated with an in-hospital mortality of > 20% [4]. The Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) registry documented a 16.3% in-hospital mortality when patients had a SBP < 100 mm Hg and creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL at admission [5].

The presence of acute kidney injury in the setting of ADHF is a very common occurrence and was termed cardiorenal syndrome type 1 (CRS1) [6]. The prevalence of CRS1 in single-centered studies ranged from 32% to 40% of all ADHF admissions [7,8]. If this estimate holds true throughout the United States, there would be 320,000 to 400,000 hospitalizations for CRS1 annually, highlighting the magnitude of this problem. Moreover, with the number of patients with heart failure expected to continue to rise, CRS1 will only become more prevalent in the future. In this review we discuss the prevalence, proposed pathophysiology including hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic factors, prognosticating variables, data for different treatment strategies, ongoing clinical trials, and highlight questions and problems physicians will face moving forward in this common and challenging condition.

Pathogenesis of CRS1

Hemodynamic Effects

The early hypothesis for renal dysfunction in ADHF centered on hemodynamics, as reduced cardiac output was believed to decrease renal perfusion. However, analysis of invasive hemodynamics from patients with ADHF suggested that central venous pressure (CVP) was actually a better predictor of the development of CRS1 than cardiac output. In a single-center study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic, hemodynamics from 145 patients with ADHF were evaluated and surprisingly baseline cardiac index was greater in the patients with CRS1 than patients without renal dysfunction (2.0 ± 0.8 L/min/m² vs 1.8 ± 0.4 L/min/m²; P = 0.008). However, baseline CVP was higher in the CRS1 group (18 ± 7 mm Hg vs 12 ± 6 mm Hg; P = 0.001), and there was a heightened risk of developing CRS1 as CVP increased. In fact, 75% of the patients with a CVP of > 24 mm Hg developed renal impairment [9]. In a retrospective study of the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Arterial Catheter Effectiveness (ESCAPE) trial, the only hemodynamic parameter that correlated with baseline creatinine was CVP. However, no invasive measures predicted worsening renal function during hospitalization [10]. Finally, an experiment that used isolated canine kidneys showed increased venous pressure acutely reduced urine production. Interestingly, this relationship was dependent on arterial pressure; as arterial flow decreased smaller increases in CVP were needed to reduce urine output [11]. Together, these data suggest increased CVP plays an important role in CRS1, but imply hemodynamics alone may not fully explain the pathophysiology of CRS1.

Inflammation

As information about how hemodynamics incompletely predict renal dysfunction in ADHF became available, alternative hypotheses were investigated to gain a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology underlying CRS1. A pathological role of inflammation in CRS1 has gained attention due to recent publications. First of all, serum levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-a and IL-6 were elevated in patients with CRS1 when compared to health controls [12]. Interestingly, Virzi et al showed that the median value of IL-6 was 5 times higher in CRS1 patients when compared to ADHF patients without renal dysfunction [13]. The negative consequences of elevated serum cytokines were demonstrated when incubation of a human cell line of monocytes with serum from CRS1 patients induced apoptosis in 81% of cells compared to just 11% of cells with control serum [12]. It is possible that cytokine-induced apoptosis could occur in other cell types in different organs in patients with CRS1, which may contribute to both cardiac and renal dysfunction. Finally, analysis from a rat model of CRS1 revealed macrophage infiltration into the kidneys and increased numbers of activated monocytes in the peripheral blood. Interestingly, monocyte/macrophage depletion using liposome clodronate prevented chronic renal dysfunction in the rat model [14]. In summary, these data suggest inflammation contributes to CRS1 pathophysiology, but more experimental data is needed to determine if there is a causal relationship.

Oxidative Stress

Very recently, oxidative stress was proposed to play a role in CRS1. Virzi et al analyzed serum levels of markers of oxidative stress and compared ADHF patients without renal impairment to CRS1 patients. The markers of oxidative stress, which included myeloperoxidase, nitric oxide, copper/zinc superoxide dismutase, and endogenous peroxidase, were all significantly higher in CRS1 patients [13]. While provocative, the tissues responsible for the generation of these molecules and the subsequent effects have not yet been fully elucidated.

Prognostication

Severity of Acute Kidney Injury

Initial publications did not document a strong link between kidney injury and poor outcomes in ADHF. Firstly, Ather et al performed a single-centered study that investigated how change in renal function defined by change in creatinine, estimated GFR, and BUN affected outcomes one year post admission for ADHF. Kidney injury defined by a change in creatinine or in estimated GFR was not associated with increased risk of mortality, but a change in BUN was associated with increased mortality in a univariate analysis [15]. Testani et al retrospectively analyzed patients from the ESCAPE trial and found worsening renal function defined by a ≥ 20% reduction in estimated GFR was not significantly associated with 180-day mortality, but there was a trend towards higher mortality (hazard ration 1.4; P = 0.11) [16]. Importantly, neither of 2 these studies assessed how severity of AKI impacted outcomes, which may have contributed to the weak relationships observed.

Diuretic Responsiveness

Voors et al performed a retrospective analysis of diuretic responsiveness in 1161 patients from the Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure (RELAX-AHF) trial. Diuretic responsiveness was defined as weight change (kg) per diuretic dose (IV furosemide and PO furosemide) over 5 days and then patients were separated into tertiles. The lowest tertile group had an approximate 20% incidence of 60-day combined end-point of death, heart failure or renal failure readmission compared to less than 10% incidence in the middle and upper tertiles. Interestingly, when the effects of worsening renal function (WRF), defined as creatinine change of ≥ 0.3 mg/dL, were examined in patients stratified by diuretic response, WRF did not offer additional prognostic information [19].

Finally, Valenete et al analyzed diuretic response in 1745 patients from the PROTECT trial (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A1-Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function). Diuretic response was calculated using the weight change per 40 mg of furosemide, and as diuretic response declined there was increasing risk of 60-day rehospitalization and 180-day mortality rates. In fact, the lowest quintile responders had a 25% mortality rate at 180 days [20].

Emerging Biomarkers

Urine Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin

Because previous studies showed urinary levels of NGAL was an earlier and more reliable marker of renal dysfunction than creatinine in AKI [21], it was studied as a possible biomarker for the development of CRS1 in ADHF. A single-centered study quantified levels of urine NGAL in 100 patients admitted with heart failure and then tracked the rates of acute kidney injury. Urine NGAL was elevated in patients that developed AKI and a cut-off value 12 ng/mL had a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 67% for predicting CRS1 [22]. While promising, further studies are needed to better define the role of NGAL in CRS1.

Cystatin C

Cystatin C is a ubiquitously expressed cysteine protease that has a constant production rate and is freely filtered by the glomerulus without being secreted into the tubules, and has effectively prognosticated outcomes in ADHF [23]. Lassus et al showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.2 (2.0–5.3) for 12-month mortality when cystatin C levels were elevated. Moreover, patients with the highest tertitle of NT-proBNP and cystatin C had a 48.7% 1-year mortality. Interestingly, patients with an elevated cystatin C but normal creatinine had a 40.6% 1-year mortality compared to 12.6% for those with normal cystatin C and creatinine [24]. Furthermore, Arimoto et al showed elevated cystatin C predicted death or rehospitalization in a small cohort of ADHF patients in Japan [25]. Also, Naruse et al showed cystatin C was a better predictor of cardiac death than estimated GFR by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD) equation [26]. Finally, Manzano-Fernandez et al showed the highest tertile of cystatin C was a significant independent risk factor for 2-year death or rehospitalization while creatinine and MDRD estimates of GFR were not [27]. In agreement with Lassus et al, elevations in either 2 or 3 of cystatin C, troponin, and NT-proBNP predicted death or rehospitalization when compared to those with normal levels of these 3 markers [27]. In conclusion, cystatin C either alone or in combination with other biomarkers identifies high-risk patients.

Kidney Injury Molecule 1

Kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1) is a type-1 cell membrane glycoprotein expressed in regenerating proximal tubular cells but not under normal conditions [28]. Although associated with increased risk of hospitalization and mortality in chronic heart failure [29,30], elevated levels of urinary KIM-1 did not predict mortality in ADHF [31]. Further studies are needed to elucidate the utility of KIM-1 in CRS1.

Treatment Approaches

Diuretics

Loop diuretics are the main treatment for decongestion of patients with CRS1. To date, no clinical trial has compared the different loop diuretics (furosemide, bumetanide, torsemide, or ethacrynic acid) to each other, so there is no clear choice of which loop diuretic is the best. However, dosing scheme was investigated in the Dose Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE) trial. In this trial, 308 patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 design in which patients were placed in groups with low-dose (equivalent to oral dose) or high-dose (2.5 times oral dose) intermittent parental therapy or alternatively low-dose or high-dose continuous drip therapy. There were no differences in dyspnea, fluid changes, change in creatinine, hospital length stay, or rehospitalization and death rates when the intermittent and drip approaches were compared. However, the high-dose arm had decreased dyspnea, increased volume removal, but there were more occurrences of AKIs when compared to the low-dose arm [32].

In clinical practice, if loop diuretic treatment does not result in the desired urine output, a second-site diuretic may be added to potentiate diuresis. Unfortunately, there is little data on this common clinical practice and thus the optimal choice of second site agent (chlorthiazide or metolazone) is unknown. Frequently, the deciding factor is based upon cost or concern that oral absorption of metolazone will be ineffective. However, Moranville et al recently performed a retrospective assessment comparing chlorthiazide (22 patients) to metolazone (33 patients) in ADHF patients with renal dysfunction defined by a creatinine clearance of 15–50 mL/min. There was a nonsignificant trend towards increased urine output in the metolazone group, no differences in the rates of adverse events, and the chlorthiazide group actually had a longer hospital stay [33]. While potentially promising results, the retrospective nature of the study made it difficult to determine if the differences were due to treatment approach or dissimilarities of patient illness. Nonetheless, physicians must remain vigilant when implementing the second-site diuretic approach because it can lead to marked diuretic response leading to metabolic derangements including hypokalemia, hyponatremia, hypomagnesaemia, and metabolic alkalosis.

Inotropes

The use of inotropic agents such as dobutamine or milrinone can be used to augment cardiac function when there is a known low-output state for better renal perfusion in CRS1. Unfortunately, there is little objective data available about the utility of this widely implemented approach. The Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Intravenous Milrinone for Exacerbations of a Chronic Heart Failure (OPTIME-HF) trial did not show improved renal function with milrinone treatment [34]. The use of levosimendan, a cardiac calcium sensitizer that increases contractility not currently approved in the United States, was compared to dobutamine in the Survival of Patients With Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial, and there were no differences in rates of renal failure when the 2 groups were compared [35]. Nonetheless, if cardiac output is severely compromised, inotropes can be used for CRS1 treatment, but they should be used cautiously due the increased risks of lethal arrhythmias.

Dopamine

Use of low-dose dopamine to stimulate D1 and D2 receptors as a way to increase renal blood flow and promote increased glomerular filtration and urine production was extensively studied in ADHF. A small trial showed use of low dose dopamine had renal protective effects in a total of 20 patients [36]. However, when larger trials were conducted, such beneficial results were not consistently observed. The Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (DAD-HF I) trial compared low-dose furosemide plus low-dose dopamine (5 µg/kg/min) to high-dose furosemide alone in 60 patients. There were no differences in total diuresis, hospital stay, and 60-day mortality or rehospitalization rates, but there was a reduction in the renal dysfunction at the 24-hour time point in the dopamine-treated arm (6.7% versus 30%) [37]. The Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure II trial randomized 161 ADHF patients to high-dose furosemide, low-dose furosemide and lose dose dopamine (5 µg/kg/min), or low-dose furosemide and assessed dyspnea, worsening renal function, length of stay, 60-day and one-year all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure. Dopamine treatment did not improve any of the outcomes measured [38]. Finally, the most recent trial to examine the effects of dopamine was the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation (ROSE) trial. In this trial, there were 360 patients with ADHF randomized to nesiritide or dopamine versus placebo in a 2:1 design. When comparing dopamine (111 patients) treatment to placebo (115 patients), there were no differences in urine output, renal function as determined by cystatin C levels, or symptomatic improvements. However, there was more tachycardia in the dopamine group [39]. Currently, there is not strong evidence supporting routine use of dopamine in CRS1.

Nesiritide

Use of nesiritide, recombinant brain natriuretic peptide, was also investigated as a way to enhance urine production through the natriuretic effects of the peptide. The first attempt to explore this hypothesis was the B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Cardiorenal Decompensation Syndrome (BNP-CARDS) trial. BNP-CARDS showed a 48-hour infusion of nesiritide (39 patients) or placebo (36 patients) in patients with ADHF and renal dysfunction (estimated GFR between 15–60 mL/min) did not reduce the incidence of worsening renal function as defined by a rise in serum creatinine by 20% [40]. A similar approach was implemented in the Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial which examined over 7000 patients with ADHF. 3496 patients were treated with nesiritide and 3511 patients were treated with placebo for 24 hours and up to 7 days. Nesiritide treatment did not alter dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, improve renal function as determined by creatinine change, or alter the combined end-point of rehospitalization or death 30 at days [41]. The ROSE trial examined the effects of nesiritide (117 patients) versus placebo (115 patients) for urine production, change in renal function as defined by change in cystatin C, and decongestion (urinary sodium excretion, weight change, and change in NT-proBNP) at 72 hours. Nesiritide did not alter any of the outcomes investigated [39]. Finally, a single-centered study conducted at the Mayo Clinic examined the effects of nesiritide (37 patients) or placebo (35 patients) with ADHF and pre-existing renal dysfunction (estimated GFR between 20 and 60 mL/min). These investigators found nesiritide treatment resulted in less renal dysfunction as measured by creatinine and BUN, but no changes in diuretic responsiveness, duration of hospitalization, or rehospitalization rates. Nesiritide did reduce serum endothelin levels, but had no effect on ANP, NT-pro BNP, renin, angiotensin II, or aldosterone [42]. In summary, nesiritide does not appear to have significant renal protective effects in ADHF.

Adenosine A1 Receptor Antagonists

The use of adenosine receptor antagonists to prevent adenosine-mediated vasoconstriction of renal vasculature in ADHF has also been examined. The first study conducted was a small double-blind randomized-controlled trial that investigated the effects of rolofylline, an adenosine A-1 antagonist, in patients with ADHF and an estimated creatinine clearance of 20-80 mL/min. The study had 27 patients in the placebo arm, 29 patients that received 2.5 mg of rolofylline, 31 patients received 15 mg of rolofylline, 30 patients received 30 mg of rolofylline, and 29 patients received 60 mg of rolofylline, all of which was daily for up to 3 days. Rolofylline treatment increased urine output on day 1 and improved renal function on day 2 [43]. These positive results led to the Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of Selective Adenosine A1 Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function (PROTECT) Trial. PROTECT assessed the effects of rolofylline (1356) or placebo (677) in patients with ADHF and an estimated creatinine clearance between 20 and 80 mL/min. There were no significant differences in renal function out to 14 days, but rolofylline led to more weight loss than placebo [44,45]. In a subgroup analysis of patients with severe baseline renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance of less than 30 mL/min), rolofylline reduced the combined 60-day end-point of hospitalization due to cardiovascular or renal cause and death [45]. Finally, the Effects of KW-3902 Injectable Emulsion on Heart Failure Signs and Symptoms, Diuresis, Renal Function, and Clinical Outcomes in Subjects Hospitalized with Worsening Renal Function and Heart Failure Requiring Intravenous Therapy (REACH-UP) trial probed the effects of rolofylline (36 patients) or placebo (40 patients) in patients with ADHF and renal impairment (creatinine clearance of 20-60 mL/min). Rolofylline treatment did not alter renal function, but there was a nonsignificant trend towards reduction in 60-day combined end-point of hospitalization due to renal or cardiovascular causes or death [46]. In summary, the use of rolofylline has not been conclusively associated with improved outcomes in CRS1.

Vasopressin Antagonists

The use of vasopressin antagonists to induce aquaphoresis and combat hyponatremia was studied in ADHF. Vasopressin antagonists were first investigated in the Acute and Chronic Therapeutic Impact of a Vasopressin Antagonist (ACTIV) trial. ACTIV involved 3 doses of tolvaptan (78 patients received 30 mg, 84 patients received 60 mg, and 77 patients received 90 mg) versus placebo (80 patients), and tolvaptan increased urine production and decreased body weight compared to placebo without compromising renal function. A post-hoc analysis of patients with renal dysfunction (BUN > 29 mg/dL) and severe volume overload revealed a survival benefit at 60 days [47]. The Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVERST) trial compared placebo (2061 patients) versus 30 mg/day of tolvaptan (2072 patients) within 48 hours after admission in an identical 2-trial design. Tolvaptan increased weight loss and reduced dyspnea acutely but did not alter all-cause mortality or cardiovascular or heart failure hospitalization rates out to 24 months post index hospitalization [48,49]. These data suggest vasopressin antagonists may potentiate diuresis acutely but likely do not improve long-term outcomes.

Corticosteroids

The use of corticosteroids in ADHF has been controversial as there were initial concerns that corticosteroids would increase fluid retention. However, corticosteroids augmented diuretic response and improved renal function in 13 ADHF patients who had inadequate response to sequential nephron blockage [50]. Furthermore, Zhang et al showed that prednisone treatment in 35 patients admitted with ADHF increased urinary volume, reduced dyspnea, reduced uric acid, and improved renal function [51]. These promising results led to the Cardiac Outcome Prevention Effectiveness of Glucocorticoids in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (COPE-ADHF) trial. In this single-centered study, 102 patients with ADHF were randomized to either placebo [51] or corticosteroids [51] and the outcomes recorded included urinary volume, change in creatinine, and cardiovascular death at 30 days. Use of corticosteroids improved renal function, increased urine output, and reduced mortality (3/51 in corticosteroid group versus 10/51 in the placebo group) [52]. The mechanisms underlying the improvements with corticosteroids were not determined, but were hypothesized to be facilitation of natriuretic peptides or dilation of renal vasculature through activation of nitric oxide pathway or dopaminergic system.

Serelaxin

Serelaxin is a recombinantly expressed human relaxin-2, a peptide hormone present during pregnancy which facilitates physiological cardiovascular and renal adaptations [53–55], which showed potential benefits in CRS1. Analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial revealed serelaxin reduced incidence of worsening renal function at day 2 of treatment as defined by changes in serum creatinine, cystatin C, and BUN. Importantly, worsening renal function defined by cystatin C changes was associated with increased 180-day mortality in this analysis [56]. The mechanisms by which serelaxin prevented renal dysfunction are currently unknown as serelaxin treatment did not improve diuretic efficiency [19].

Ultrafiltration

Another treatment choice in CRS1 is mechanical removal of salt and water via ultrafiltration. Ultrafiltration showed early promise in Ultrafiltration Versus Intravenous Diuretics for Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure trial (UNLOAD) trial. In this study, 200 patients with ADHF were randomized to either ultrafiltration or medical management with loop diuretics. Use of ultrafiltration increased volume removal without any differences in renal function and reduced rehospitalization rates at 90 days [57].

However, when ultrafiltration was employed specifically in CRS1 patients in the Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure trial (CARESS-HF), UF was not superior to medical treatment. There were 188 patients studied in CARESS-HF, and in the ultrafiltration arm there was increased risk of renal dysfunction, no differences in volume removal, and no change in rehospitalization rates at 90 days [58]. When trying to reconcile UNLOAD and CARESS-HF, the medical treatment arm in CARESS-HF was much more standardized and aggressive and UNLOAD was earlier implementation of ultrafiltration, which may have explained the differences. Interestingly, ultrafiltration was hypothesized to be advantageous over diuretic therapy through reduced activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, but analysis of the patients from CARESS-HF showed higher levels of plasma renin activity and no difference in aldosterone levels in ultrafiltration patients [59].

Two meta-analyses have examined the use of ultrafiltration versus medical management in ADHF and both showed ultrafiltration was more effective in volume removal than medical therapy but did not improve rehospitalization or mortality rates [60,61]. This fact combined with the risks of vascular access placement and bleeding from anticoagulation limits to routine use of ultrafiltration in CRS1.

Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

Once renal function deteriorates to the point that renal replacement therapy is needed for both volume removal and solute clearance in CRS1, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) may be implemented. Unfortunately, there are few available data for this group of advanced CRS1 patients to guide physicians. There was a single-centered study conducted in Egypt that randomized 40 ADHF patients to either IV furosemide or CRRT. The patients treated with CRRT had greater weight loss and decreased length of stay in the ICU, but there were no differences in dialysis dependence rates or 30-day mortality [62]. Two single-centered studies reported outcomes associated with advanced CRS1 requiring CRRT. In a study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic, 63 patients with CRS1 were treated with ultrafiltration, of which 37 were converted to CRRT due to worsening renal function. Of the 37 patients treated with CRRT, 16 died in the hospital and 4 were discharged with hospice care [63]. In another retrospective study performed at the University of Alabama-Birmingham, use of rescue CRRT in advanced CRS1 was examined in 37 patients. 23 patients died during hospitalization and 2 were discharged to hospice care [64]. Combination of the Cleveland Clinic and University of Alabama-Birmingham studies revealed patients requiring CRRT in the setting of advanced CRS1 had an in-hospital mortality or palliative discharge rate of 60.8% (45/74). Clearly, this population needs further investigation to prevent such poor outcomes.

Future Treatment Options

Ongoing and Unreported Clinical Trials

Unfortunately, none of the current treatments for CRS1 have definitive improvements in outcomes, but there are several ongoing clinical trials which will hopefully identify novel treatment strategies. First of all, the Acetazolamide and Spironolactone to Increase Natriuresis in Congestive Heart Failure (Diuresis-CHF) trial is being conducted in Belgium. This study will examine the effects of acetazolamide with low dose diuretic versus high dose diuretics in one aim and the effects of upfront spironolactone in another. The outcomes analyzed will include total natriuresis, potassium homeostasis, NT-proBNP changes, change in renal function, peak serum levels of renin and aldosterone, weight change, urine volume, and change in edema (NCT01973335). The Protocolized Diuretic Strategy in Cardiorenal Failure (ProDius) trial is being performed at the University of Pittsburgh, and will determine the effects of a protocolized diuretic approach to target 3-5 liters of urine production a day versus standard therapy and will track the change in body weight, length of hospitalization, reshospitalization rates, mortality rates, venous compliance of internal jugular vein, clinical decongestion, change in renal function, and urine output (NCT01921829). The Levosimendan versus Dobutamine for Renal Function in Heart Failure (ELDOR) study is ongoing in Sweden and will probe the acute effects of levosimendan and dobutamine on renal perfusion. The endpoints will include changes in renal blood flow, GFR, renal vascular resistance, central hemodynamics, renal oxygen extraction and consumptions, and filtration fraction (NCT02133105). Finally, the Safety and Efficacy of Low Dose Hypertonic Saline and High Dose Furosemide for Congestive Heart Failure (REaCH) trial probed the effects of combination of hypertonic saline and furosemide versus furosemide in patients with ADHF and renal impairment defined by a GFR<60 mL/min. The outcomes were change in renal function, diuretic response, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, weight loss, BNP levels, and included a cost analysis. The study was completed but results are not currently available (NCT01028170)

Should Inflammation Be Targeted in CRS1?

Although proposed to play a role in the pathophysiology of CRS1, inflammation has not been explicitly targeted as a treatment for CRS1. One possible way to combat inflammation could be inhibition of the IL-6 pathway, which is support by preclinical work as previous studies showed IL-6 knockout mice were resistant to HgCl₂-induced renal injury and death [65] and IL-6 has negative inotropic effects in both isolated cardiomyocytes [66] and intact animals [67]. Thus, IL-6 antagonism may improve both cardiac and renal function, an ideal scenario for CRS1 patients. The availability of tocilizumab, an FDA-approved humanized antibody to the IL-6 receptor, may allow for investigation of this hypothesis in the future. Although not examined in the COPE-ADHF trial, an alternative explanation for the improvements associated with corticosteroids treatment were the anti-inflammatory effects. If this were true, corticosteroids would represent a relatively cheap treatment option for CRS1 patients, but more studies need to be conducted before this approach is widely implemented. Finally, use of cytokine profiling may be used to enrich a population of CRS1 patients that could be investigated in future clinical trials using anti-inflammatory medications.

Unanswered Questions Moving Forward

Severity of AKI and Treatment Effects

An important unknown that warrants further investigation is if the severity of AKI should dictate treatment choice in CRS1. As discussed above, increasing severity of AKI resulted in elevated risk of adverse events, but it remains unknown whether different treatments offer benefits for more or less severe renal impairment. Perhaps, future studies aimed at defining outcomes from different treatment strategies stratified by severity of renal dysfunction may reveal which patients benefit from the various treatment options for CRS1.

How Do We Best Define Renal Dysfunction in CRS1?

Currently, there is no accepted definition of renal dysfunction in CRS1. As discussed above, using the AKIN, KDIGO, or RIFLE scoring systems or diuretic responsiveness effectively differentiated outcomes in patients with CRS1. However, an agreed-upon definition would likely benefit the field going forward so this population could be systematically investigated in future studies.

Conclusion

In summary, CRS1 is a common clinical entity associated with poor patient outcomes. A complex pathophysiology marked by reduced cardiac output, increased central venous pressure, inflammation, and oxidative stress underlies the disease process. Unfortunately, no current treatment approach shows consistent improvements in outcomes, highlighting the urgent need for further research to reduce the burden that CRS1 imposes.

Corresponding author: Kurt W. Prins, MD, PhD, MMC 580 Mayo, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, [email protected].

Funding/support: Dr. Prins is funded by NIH F32 grant HL129554 and Dr. Thenappen is funded by AHA Scientist Development Grant 15SDG25560048.

From the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Abstract

• Objective: To present a review of cardiorenal syndrome type 1 (CRS1).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: Acute kidney injury occurs in approximately one-third of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and the resultant condition was named CRS1. A growing body of literature shows CRS1 patients are at high risk for poor outcomes, and thus there is an urgent need to understand the pathophysiology and subsequently develop effective treatments. In this review we discuss prevalence, proposed pathophysiology including hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic factors, prognosticating variables, data for different treatment strategies, and ongoing clinical trials and highlight questions and problems physicians will face moving forward with this common and challenging condition.
• Conclusion: Further research is needed to understand the pathophysiology of this complex clinical entity and to develop effective treatments.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is an epidemic facing physicians throughout the world. In the United States alone, ADHF accounts for over 1 million hospitalizations annually, with costs in 2012 reaching $30.7 billion [1]. Despite the advances in chronic heart failure management, ADHF continues to be associated with poor outcomes as exemplified by 30-day readmission rates of over 20% and in-hospital mortality rates of 5% to 6%, both of which have not significantly improved over the past 20 years [2,3]. One of the strongest predictors of adverse outcomes in ADHF is renal dysfunction. An analysis from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) revealed the combination of renal dysfunction (creatinine > 2.75 mg/dL and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) > 43 mg/dL) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 115 mm Hg) upon admission was associated with an in-hospital mortality of > 20% [4]. The Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) registry documented a 16.3% in-hospital mortality when patients had a SBP < 100 mm Hg and creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL at admission [5].

The presence of acute kidney injury in the setting of ADHF is a very common occurrence and was termed cardiorenal syndrome type 1 (CRS1) [6]. The prevalence of CRS1 in single-centered studies ranged from 32% to 40% of all ADHF admissions [7,8]. If this estimate holds true throughout the United States, there would be 320,000 to 400,000 hospitalizations for CRS1 annually, highlighting the magnitude of this problem. Moreover, with the number of patients with heart failure expected to continue to rise, CRS1 will only become more prevalent in the future. In this review we discuss the prevalence, proposed pathophysiology including hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic factors, prognosticating variables, data for different treatment strategies, ongoing clinical trials, and highlight questions and problems physicians will face moving forward in this common and challenging condition.

Pathogenesis of CRS1

Hemodynamic Effects

The early hypothesis for renal dysfunction in ADHF centered on hemodynamics, as reduced cardiac output was believed to decrease renal perfusion. However, analysis of invasive hemodynamics from patients with ADHF suggested that central venous pressure (CVP) was actually a better predictor of the development of CRS1 than cardiac output. In a single-center study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic, hemodynamics from 145 patients with ADHF were evaluated and surprisingly baseline cardiac index was greater in the patients with CRS1 than patients without renal dysfunction (2.0 ± 0.8 L/min/m² vs 1.8 ± 0.4 L/min/m²; P = 0.008). However, baseline CVP was higher in the CRS1 group (18 ± 7 mm Hg vs 12 ± 6 mm Hg; P = 0.001), and there was a heightened risk of developing CRS1 as CVP increased. In fact, 75% of the patients with a CVP of > 24 mm Hg developed renal impairment [9]. In a retrospective study of the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Arterial Catheter Effectiveness (ESCAPE) trial, the only hemodynamic parameter that correlated with baseline creatinine was CVP. However, no invasive measures predicted worsening renal function during hospitalization [10]. Finally, an experiment that used isolated canine kidneys showed increased venous pressure acutely reduced urine production. Interestingly, this relationship was dependent on arterial pressure; as arterial flow decreased smaller increases in CVP were needed to reduce urine output [11]. Together, these data suggest increased CVP plays an important role in CRS1, but imply hemodynamics alone may not fully explain the pathophysiology of CRS1.

Inflammation

As information about how hemodynamics incompletely predict renal dysfunction in ADHF became available, alternative hypotheses were investigated to gain a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology underlying CRS1. A pathological role of inflammation in CRS1 has gained attention due to recent publications. First of all, serum levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-a and IL-6 were elevated in patients with CRS1 when compared to health controls [12]. Interestingly, Virzi et al showed that the median value of IL-6 was 5 times higher in CRS1 patients when compared to ADHF patients without renal dysfunction [13]. The negative consequences of elevated serum cytokines were demonstrated when incubation of a human cell line of monocytes with serum from CRS1 patients induced apoptosis in 81% of cells compared to just 11% of cells with control serum [12]. It is possible that cytokine-induced apoptosis could occur in other cell types in different organs in patients with CRS1, which may contribute to both cardiac and renal dysfunction. Finally, analysis from a rat model of CRS1 revealed macrophage infiltration into the kidneys and increased numbers of activated monocytes in the peripheral blood. Interestingly, monocyte/macrophage depletion using liposome clodronate prevented chronic renal dysfunction in the rat model [14]. In summary, these data suggest inflammation contributes to CRS1 pathophysiology, but more experimental data is needed to determine if there is a causal relationship.

Oxidative Stress

Very recently, oxidative stress was proposed to play a role in CRS1. Virzi et al analyzed serum levels of markers of oxidative stress and compared ADHF patients without renal impairment to CRS1 patients. The markers of oxidative stress, which included myeloperoxidase, nitric oxide, copper/zinc superoxide dismutase, and endogenous peroxidase, were all significantly higher in CRS1 patients [13]. While provocative, the tissues responsible for the generation of these molecules and the subsequent effects have not yet been fully elucidated.

Prognostication

Severity of Acute Kidney Injury

Initial publications did not document a strong link between kidney injury and poor outcomes in ADHF. Firstly, Ather et al performed a single-centered study that investigated how change in renal function defined by change in creatinine, estimated GFR, and BUN affected outcomes one year post admission for ADHF. Kidney injury defined by a change in creatinine or in estimated GFR was not associated with increased risk of mortality, but a change in BUN was associated with increased mortality in a univariate analysis [15]. Testani et al retrospectively analyzed patients from the ESCAPE trial and found worsening renal function defined by a ≥ 20% reduction in estimated GFR was not significantly associated with 180-day mortality, but there was a trend towards higher mortality (hazard ration 1.4; P = 0.11) [16]. Importantly, neither of 2 these studies assessed how severity of AKI impacted outcomes, which may have contributed to the weak relationships observed.

Diuretic Responsiveness

Voors et al performed a retrospective analysis of diuretic responsiveness in 1161 patients from the Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure (RELAX-AHF) trial. Diuretic responsiveness was defined as weight change (kg) per diuretic dose (IV furosemide and PO furosemide) over 5 days and then patients were separated into tertiles. The lowest tertile group had an approximate 20% incidence of 60-day combined end-point of death, heart failure or renal failure readmission compared to less than 10% incidence in the middle and upper tertiles. Interestingly, when the effects of worsening renal function (WRF), defined as creatinine change of ≥ 0.3 mg/dL, were examined in patients stratified by diuretic response, WRF did not offer additional prognostic information [19].

Finally, Valenete et al analyzed diuretic response in 1745 patients from the PROTECT trial (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A1-Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function). Diuretic response was calculated using the weight change per 40 mg of furosemide, and as diuretic response declined there was increasing risk of 60-day rehospitalization and 180-day mortality rates. In fact, the lowest quintile responders had a 25% mortality rate at 180 days [20].

Emerging Biomarkers

Urine Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin

Because previous studies showed urinary levels of NGAL was an earlier and more reliable marker of renal dysfunction than creatinine in AKI [21], it was studied as a possible biomarker for the development of CRS1 in ADHF. A single-centered study quantified levels of urine NGAL in 100 patients admitted with heart failure and then tracked the rates of acute kidney injury. Urine NGAL was elevated in patients that developed AKI and a cut-off value 12 ng/mL had a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 67% for predicting CRS1 [22]. While promising, further studies are needed to better define the role of NGAL in CRS1.

Cystatin C

Cystatin C is a ubiquitously expressed cysteine protease that has a constant production rate and is freely filtered by the glomerulus without being secreted into the tubules, and has effectively prognosticated outcomes in ADHF [23]. Lassus et al showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.2 (2.0–5.3) for 12-month mortality when cystatin C levels were elevated. Moreover, patients with the highest tertitle of NT-proBNP and cystatin C had a 48.7% 1-year mortality. Interestingly, patients with an elevated cystatin C but normal creatinine had a 40.6% 1-year mortality compared to 12.6% for those with normal cystatin C and creatinine [24]. Furthermore, Arimoto et al showed elevated cystatin C predicted death or rehospitalization in a small cohort of ADHF patients in Japan [25]. Also, Naruse et al showed cystatin C was a better predictor of cardiac death than estimated GFR by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD) equation [26]. Finally, Manzano-Fernandez et al showed the highest tertile of cystatin C was a significant independent risk factor for 2-year death or rehospitalization while creatinine and MDRD estimates of GFR were not [27]. In agreement with Lassus et al, elevations in either 2 or 3 of cystatin C, troponin, and NT-proBNP predicted death or rehospitalization when compared to those with normal levels of these 3 markers [27]. In conclusion, cystatin C either alone or in combination with other biomarkers identifies high-risk patients.

Kidney Injury Molecule 1

Kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1) is a type-1 cell membrane glycoprotein expressed in regenerating proximal tubular cells but not under normal conditions [28]. Although associated with increased risk of hospitalization and mortality in chronic heart failure [29,30], elevated levels of urinary KIM-1 did not predict mortality in ADHF [31]. Further studies are needed to elucidate the utility of KIM-1 in CRS1.

Treatment Approaches

Diuretics

Loop diuretics are the main treatment for decongestion of patients with CRS1. To date, no clinical trial has compared the different loop diuretics (furosemide, bumetanide, torsemide, or ethacrynic acid) to each other, so there is no clear choice of which loop diuretic is the best. However, dosing scheme was investigated in the Dose Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE) trial. In this trial, 308 patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 design in which patients were placed in groups with low-dose (equivalent to oral dose) or high-dose (2.5 times oral dose) intermittent parental therapy or alternatively low-dose or high-dose continuous drip therapy. There were no differences in dyspnea, fluid changes, change in creatinine, hospital length stay, or rehospitalization and death rates when the intermittent and drip approaches were compared. However, the high-dose arm had decreased dyspnea, increased volume removal, but there were more occurrences of AKIs when compared to the low-dose arm [32].

In clinical practice, if loop diuretic treatment does not result in the desired urine output, a second-site diuretic may be added to potentiate diuresis. Unfortunately, there is little data on this common clinical practice and thus the optimal choice of second site agent (chlorthiazide or metolazone) is unknown. Frequently, the deciding factor is based upon cost or concern that oral absorption of metolazone will be ineffective. However, Moranville et al recently performed a retrospective assessment comparing chlorthiazide (22 patients) to metolazone (33 patients) in ADHF patients with renal dysfunction defined by a creatinine clearance of 15–50 mL/min. There was a nonsignificant trend towards increased urine output in the metolazone group, no differences in the rates of adverse events, and the chlorthiazide group actually had a longer hospital stay [33]. While potentially promising results, the retrospective nature of the study made it difficult to determine if the differences were due to treatment approach or dissimilarities of patient illness. Nonetheless, physicians must remain vigilant when implementing the second-site diuretic approach because it can lead to marked diuretic response leading to metabolic derangements including hypokalemia, hyponatremia, hypomagnesaemia, and metabolic alkalosis.

Inotropes

The use of inotropic agents such as dobutamine or milrinone can be used to augment cardiac function when there is a known low-output state for better renal perfusion in CRS1. Unfortunately, there is little objective data available about the utility of this widely implemented approach. The Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Intravenous Milrinone for Exacerbations of a Chronic Heart Failure (OPTIME-HF) trial did not show improved renal function with milrinone treatment [34]. The use of levosimendan, a cardiac calcium sensitizer that increases contractility not currently approved in the United States, was compared to dobutamine in the Survival of Patients With Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial, and there were no differences in rates of renal failure when the 2 groups were compared [35]. Nonetheless, if cardiac output is severely compromised, inotropes can be used for CRS1 treatment, but they should be used cautiously due the increased risks of lethal arrhythmias.

Dopamine

Use of low-dose dopamine to stimulate D1 and D2 receptors as a way to increase renal blood flow and promote increased glomerular filtration and urine production was extensively studied in ADHF. A small trial showed use of low dose dopamine had renal protective effects in a total of 20 patients [36]. However, when larger trials were conducted, such beneficial results were not consistently observed. The Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (DAD-HF I) trial compared low-dose furosemide plus low-dose dopamine (5 µg/kg/min) to high-dose furosemide alone in 60 patients. There were no differences in total diuresis, hospital stay, and 60-day mortality or rehospitalization rates, but there was a reduction in the renal dysfunction at the 24-hour time point in the dopamine-treated arm (6.7% versus 30%) [37]. The Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure II trial randomized 161 ADHF patients to high-dose furosemide, low-dose furosemide and lose dose dopamine (5 µg/kg/min), or low-dose furosemide and assessed dyspnea, worsening renal function, length of stay, 60-day and one-year all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure. Dopamine treatment did not improve any of the outcomes measured [38]. Finally, the most recent trial to examine the effects of dopamine was the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation (ROSE) trial. In this trial, there were 360 patients with ADHF randomized to nesiritide or dopamine versus placebo in a 2:1 design. When comparing dopamine (111 patients) treatment to placebo (115 patients), there were no differences in urine output, renal function as determined by cystatin C levels, or symptomatic improvements. However, there was more tachycardia in the dopamine group [39]. Currently, there is not strong evidence supporting routine use of dopamine in CRS1.

Nesiritide

Use of nesiritide, recombinant brain natriuretic peptide, was also investigated as a way to enhance urine production through the natriuretic effects of the peptide. The first attempt to explore this hypothesis was the B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Cardiorenal Decompensation Syndrome (BNP-CARDS) trial. BNP-CARDS showed a 48-hour infusion of nesiritide (39 patients) or placebo (36 patients) in patients with ADHF and renal dysfunction (estimated GFR between 15–60 mL/min) did not reduce the incidence of worsening renal function as defined by a rise in serum creatinine by 20% [40]. A similar approach was implemented in the Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial which examined over 7000 patients with ADHF. 3496 patients were treated with nesiritide and 3511 patients were treated with placebo for 24 hours and up to 7 days. Nesiritide treatment did not alter dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, improve renal function as determined by creatinine change, or alter the combined end-point of rehospitalization or death 30 at days [41]. The ROSE trial examined the effects of nesiritide (117 patients) versus placebo (115 patients) for urine production, change in renal function as defined by change in cystatin C, and decongestion (urinary sodium excretion, weight change, and change in NT-proBNP) at 72 hours. Nesiritide did not alter any of the outcomes investigated [39]. Finally, a single-centered study conducted at the Mayo Clinic examined the effects of nesiritide (37 patients) or placebo (35 patients) with ADHF and pre-existing renal dysfunction (estimated GFR between 20 and 60 mL/min). These investigators found nesiritide treatment resulted in less renal dysfunction as measured by creatinine and BUN, but no changes in diuretic responsiveness, duration of hospitalization, or rehospitalization rates. Nesiritide did reduce serum endothelin levels, but had no effect on ANP, NT-pro BNP, renin, angiotensin II, or aldosterone [42]. In summary, nesiritide does not appear to have significant renal protective effects in ADHF.

Adenosine A1 Receptor Antagonists

The use of adenosine receptor antagonists to prevent adenosine-mediated vasoconstriction of renal vasculature in ADHF has also been examined. The first study conducted was a small double-blind randomized-controlled trial that investigated the effects of rolofylline, an adenosine A-1 antagonist, in patients with ADHF and an estimated creatinine clearance of 20-80 mL/min. The study had 27 patients in the placebo arm, 29 patients that received 2.5 mg of rolofylline, 31 patients received 15 mg of rolofylline, 30 patients received 30 mg of rolofylline, and 29 patients received 60 mg of rolofylline, all of which was daily for up to 3 days. Rolofylline treatment increased urine output on day 1 and improved renal function on day 2 [43]. These positive results led to the Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of Selective Adenosine A1 Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function (PROTECT) Trial. PROTECT assessed the effects of rolofylline (1356) or placebo (677) in patients with ADHF and an estimated creatinine clearance between 20 and 80 mL/min. There were no significant differences in renal function out to 14 days, but rolofylline led to more weight loss than placebo [44,45]. In a subgroup analysis of patients with severe baseline renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance of less than 30 mL/min), rolofylline reduced the combined 60-day end-point of hospitalization due to cardiovascular or renal cause and death [45]. Finally, the Effects of KW-3902 Injectable Emulsion on Heart Failure Signs and Symptoms, Diuresis, Renal Function, and Clinical Outcomes in Subjects Hospitalized with Worsening Renal Function and Heart Failure Requiring Intravenous Therapy (REACH-UP) trial probed the effects of rolofylline (36 patients) or placebo (40 patients) in patients with ADHF and renal impairment (creatinine clearance of 20-60 mL/min). Rolofylline treatment did not alter renal function, but there was a nonsignificant trend towards reduction in 60-day combined end-point of hospitalization due to renal or cardiovascular causes or death [46]. In summary, the use of rolofylline has not been conclusively associated with improved outcomes in CRS1.

Vasopressin Antagonists

The use of vasopressin antagonists to induce aquaphoresis and combat hyponatremia was studied in ADHF. Vasopressin antagonists were first investigated in the Acute and Chronic Therapeutic Impact of a Vasopressin Antagonist (ACTIV) trial. ACTIV involved 3 doses of tolvaptan (78 patients received 30 mg, 84 patients received 60 mg, and 77 patients received 90 mg) versus placebo (80 patients), and tolvaptan increased urine production and decreased body weight compared to placebo without compromising renal function. A post-hoc analysis of patients with renal dysfunction (BUN > 29 mg/dL) and severe volume overload revealed a survival benefit at 60 days [47]. The Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVERST) trial compared placebo (2061 patients) versus 30 mg/day of tolvaptan (2072 patients) within 48 hours after admission in an identical 2-trial design. Tolvaptan increased weight loss and reduced dyspnea acutely but did not alter all-cause mortality or cardiovascular or heart failure hospitalization rates out to 24 months post index hospitalization [48,49]. These data suggest vasopressin antagonists may potentiate diuresis acutely but likely do not improve long-term outcomes.

Corticosteroids

The use of corticosteroids in ADHF has been controversial as there were initial concerns that corticosteroids would increase fluid retention. However, corticosteroids augmented diuretic response and improved renal function in 13 ADHF patients who had inadequate response to sequential nephron blockage [50]. Furthermore, Zhang et al showed that prednisone treatment in 35 patients admitted with ADHF increased urinary volume, reduced dyspnea, reduced uric acid, and improved renal function [51]. These promising results led to the Cardiac Outcome Prevention Effectiveness of Glucocorticoids in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (COPE-ADHF) trial. In this single-centered study, 102 patients with ADHF were randomized to either placebo [51] or corticosteroids [51] and the outcomes recorded included urinary volume, change in creatinine, and cardiovascular death at 30 days. Use of corticosteroids improved renal function, increased urine output, and reduced mortality (3/51 in corticosteroid group versus 10/51 in the placebo group) [52]. The mechanisms underlying the improvements with corticosteroids were not determined, but were hypothesized to be facilitation of natriuretic peptides or dilation of renal vasculature through activation of nitric oxide pathway or dopaminergic system.

Serelaxin

Serelaxin is a recombinantly expressed human relaxin-2, a peptide hormone present during pregnancy which facilitates physiological cardiovascular and renal adaptations [53–55], which showed potential benefits in CRS1. Analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial revealed serelaxin reduced incidence of worsening renal function at day 2 of treatment as defined by changes in serum creatinine, cystatin C, and BUN. Importantly, worsening renal function defined by cystatin C changes was associated with increased 180-day mortality in this analysis [56]. The mechanisms by which serelaxin prevented renal dysfunction are currently unknown as serelaxin treatment did not improve diuretic efficiency [19].

Ultrafiltration

Another treatment choice in CRS1 is mechanical removal of salt and water via ultrafiltration. Ultrafiltration showed early promise in Ultrafiltration Versus Intravenous Diuretics for Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure trial (UNLOAD) trial. In this study, 200 patients with ADHF were randomized to either ultrafiltration or medical management with loop diuretics. Use of ultrafiltration increased volume removal without any differences in renal function and reduced rehospitalization rates at 90 days [57].

However, when ultrafiltration was employed specifically in CRS1 patients in the Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure trial (CARESS-HF), UF was not superior to medical treatment. There were 188 patients studied in CARESS-HF, and in the ultrafiltration arm there was increased risk of renal dysfunction, no differences in volume removal, and no change in rehospitalization rates at 90 days [58]. When trying to reconcile UNLOAD and CARESS-HF, the medical treatment arm in CARESS-HF was much more standardized and aggressive and UNLOAD was earlier implementation of ultrafiltration, which may have explained the differences. Interestingly, ultrafiltration was hypothesized to be advantageous over diuretic therapy through reduced activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, but analysis of the patients from CARESS-HF showed higher levels of plasma renin activity and no difference in aldosterone levels in ultrafiltration patients [59].

Two meta-analyses have examined the use of ultrafiltration versus medical management in ADHF and both showed ultrafiltration was more effective in volume removal than medical therapy but did not improve rehospitalization or mortality rates [60,61]. This fact combined with the risks of vascular access placement and bleeding from anticoagulation limits to routine use of ultrafiltration in CRS1.

Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

Once renal function deteriorates to the point that renal replacement therapy is needed for both volume removal and solute clearance in CRS1, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) may be implemented. Unfortunately, there are few available data for this group of advanced CRS1 patients to guide physicians. There was a single-centered study conducted in Egypt that randomized 40 ADHF patients to either IV furosemide or CRRT. The patients treated with CRRT had greater weight loss and decreased length of stay in the ICU, but there were no differences in dialysis dependence rates or 30-day mortality [62]. Two single-centered studies reported outcomes associated with advanced CRS1 requiring CRRT. In a study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic, 63 patients with CRS1 were treated with ultrafiltration, of which 37 were converted to CRRT due to worsening renal function. Of the 37 patients treated with CRRT, 16 died in the hospital and 4 were discharged with hospice care [63]. In another retrospective study performed at the University of Alabama-Birmingham, use of rescue CRRT in advanced CRS1 was examined in 37 patients. 23 patients died during hospitalization and 2 were discharged to hospice care [64]. Combination of the Cleveland Clinic and University of Alabama-Birmingham studies revealed patients requiring CRRT in the setting of advanced CRS1 had an in-hospital mortality or palliative discharge rate of 60.8% (45/74). Clearly, this population needs further investigation to prevent such poor outcomes.

Future Treatment Options

Ongoing and Unreported Clinical Trials

Unfortunately, none of the current treatments for CRS1 have definitive improvements in outcomes, but there are several ongoing clinical trials which will hopefully identify novel treatment strategies. First of all, the Acetazolamide and Spironolactone to Increase Natriuresis in Congestive Heart Failure (Diuresis-CHF) trial is being conducted in Belgium. This study will examine the effects of acetazolamide with low dose diuretic versus high dose diuretics in one aim and the effects of upfront spironolactone in another. The outcomes analyzed will include total natriuresis, potassium homeostasis, NT-proBNP changes, change in renal function, peak serum levels of renin and aldosterone, weight change, urine volume, and change in edema (NCT01973335). The Protocolized Diuretic Strategy in Cardiorenal Failure (ProDius) trial is being performed at the University of Pittsburgh, and will determine the effects of a protocolized diuretic approach to target 3-5 liters of urine production a day versus standard therapy and will track the change in body weight, length of hospitalization, reshospitalization rates, mortality rates, venous compliance of internal jugular vein, clinical decongestion, change in renal function, and urine output (NCT01921829). The Levosimendan versus Dobutamine for Renal Function in Heart Failure (ELDOR) study is ongoing in Sweden and will probe the acute effects of levosimendan and dobutamine on renal perfusion. The endpoints will include changes in renal blood flow, GFR, renal vascular resistance, central hemodynamics, renal oxygen extraction and consumptions, and filtration fraction (NCT02133105). Finally, the Safety and Efficacy of Low Dose Hypertonic Saline and High Dose Furosemide for Congestive Heart Failure (REaCH) trial probed the effects of combination of hypertonic saline and furosemide versus furosemide in patients with ADHF and renal impairment defined by a GFR<60 mL/min. The outcomes were change in renal function, diuretic response, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, weight loss, BNP levels, and included a cost analysis. The study was completed but results are not currently available (NCT01028170)

Should Inflammation Be Targeted in CRS1?

Although proposed to play a role in the pathophysiology of CRS1, inflammation has not been explicitly targeted as a treatment for CRS1. One possible way to combat inflammation could be inhibition of the IL-6 pathway, which is support by preclinical work as previous studies showed IL-6 knockout mice were resistant to HgCl₂-induced renal injury and death [65] and IL-6 has negative inotropic effects in both isolated cardiomyocytes [66] and intact animals [67]. Thus, IL-6 antagonism may improve both cardiac and renal function, an ideal scenario for CRS1 patients. The availability of tocilizumab, an FDA-approved humanized antibody to the IL-6 receptor, may allow for investigation of this hypothesis in the future. Although not examined in the COPE-ADHF trial, an alternative explanation for the improvements associated with corticosteroids treatment were the anti-inflammatory effects. If this were true, corticosteroids would represent a relatively cheap treatment option for CRS1 patients, but more studies need to be conducted before this approach is widely implemented. Finally, use of cytokine profiling may be used to enrich a population of CRS1 patients that could be investigated in future clinical trials using anti-inflammatory medications.

Unanswered Questions Moving Forward

Severity of AKI and Treatment Effects

An important unknown that warrants further investigation is if the severity of AKI should dictate treatment choice in CRS1. As discussed above, increasing severity of AKI resulted in elevated risk of adverse events, but it remains unknown whether different treatments offer benefits for more or less severe renal impairment. Perhaps, future studies aimed at defining outcomes from different treatment strategies stratified by severity of renal dysfunction may reveal which patients benefit from the various treatment options for CRS1.

How Do We Best Define Renal Dysfunction in CRS1?

Currently, there is no accepted definition of renal dysfunction in CRS1. As discussed above, using the AKIN, KDIGO, or RIFLE scoring systems or diuretic responsiveness effectively differentiated outcomes in patients with CRS1. However, an agreed-upon definition would likely benefit the field going forward so this population could be systematically investigated in future studies.

Conclusion

In summary, CRS1 is a common clinical entity associated with poor patient outcomes. A complex pathophysiology marked by reduced cardiac output, increased central venous pressure, inflammation, and oxidative stress underlies the disease process. Unfortunately, no current treatment approach shows consistent improvements in outcomes, highlighting the urgent need for further research to reduce the burden that CRS1 imposes.

Corresponding author: Kurt W. Prins, MD, PhD, MMC 580 Mayo, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, [email protected].

Funding/support: Dr. Prins is funded by NIH F32 grant HL129554 and Dr. Thenappen is funded by AHA Scientist Development Grant 15SDG25560048.

From the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Abstract

• Objective: To present a review of cardiorenal syndrome type 1 (CRS1).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: Acute kidney injury occurs in approximately one-third of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and the resultant condition was named CRS1. A growing body of literature shows CRS1 patients are at high risk for poor outcomes, and thus there is an urgent need to understand the pathophysiology and subsequently develop effective treatments. In this review we discuss prevalence, proposed pathophysiology including hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic factors, prognosticating variables, data for different treatment strategies, and ongoing clinical trials and highlight questions and problems physicians will face moving forward with this common and challenging condition.
• Conclusion: Further research is needed to understand the pathophysiology of this complex clinical entity and to develop effective treatments.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is an epidemic facing physicians throughout the world. In the United States alone, ADHF accounts for over 1 million hospitalizations annually, with costs in 2012 reaching $30.7 billion [1]. Despite the advances in chronic heart failure management, ADHF continues to be associated with poor outcomes as exemplified by 30-day readmission rates of over 20% and in-hospital mortality rates of 5% to 6%, both of which have not significantly improved over the past 20 years [2,3]. One of the strongest predictors of adverse outcomes in ADHF is renal dysfunction. An analysis from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) revealed the combination of renal dysfunction (creatinine > 2.75 mg/dL and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) > 43 mg/dL) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 115 mm Hg) upon admission was associated with an in-hospital mortality of > 20% [4]. The Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) registry documented a 16.3% in-hospital mortality when patients had a SBP < 100 mm Hg and creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL at admission [5].

The presence of acute kidney injury in the setting of ADHF is a very common occurrence and was termed cardiorenal syndrome type 1 (CRS1) [6]. The prevalence of CRS1 in single-centered studies ranged from 32% to 40% of all ADHF admissions [7,8]. If this estimate holds true throughout the United States, there would be 320,000 to 400,000 hospitalizations for CRS1 annually, highlighting the magnitude of this problem. Moreover, with the number of patients with heart failure expected to continue to rise, CRS1 will only become more prevalent in the future. In this review we discuss the prevalence, proposed pathophysiology including hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic factors, prognosticating variables, data for different treatment strategies, ongoing clinical trials, and highlight questions and problems physicians will face moving forward in this common and challenging condition.

Pathogenesis of CRS1

Hemodynamic Effects

The early hypothesis for renal dysfunction in ADHF centered on hemodynamics, as reduced cardiac output was believed to decrease renal perfusion. However, analysis of invasive hemodynamics from patients with ADHF suggested that central venous pressure (CVP) was actually a better predictor of the development of CRS1 than cardiac output. In a single-center study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic, hemodynamics from 145 patients with ADHF were evaluated and surprisingly baseline cardiac index was greater in the patients with CRS1 than patients without renal dysfunction (2.0 ± 0.8 L/min/m² vs 1.8 ± 0.4 L/min/m²; P = 0.008). However, baseline CVP was higher in the CRS1 group (18 ± 7 mm Hg vs 12 ± 6 mm Hg; P = 0.001), and there was a heightened risk of developing CRS1 as CVP increased. In fact, 75% of the patients with a CVP of > 24 mm Hg developed renal impairment [9]. In a retrospective study of the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Arterial Catheter Effectiveness (ESCAPE) trial, the only hemodynamic parameter that correlated with baseline creatinine was CVP. However, no invasive measures predicted worsening renal function during hospitalization [10]. Finally, an experiment that used isolated canine kidneys showed increased venous pressure acutely reduced urine production. Interestingly, this relationship was dependent on arterial pressure; as arterial flow decreased smaller increases in CVP were needed to reduce urine output [11]. Together, these data suggest increased CVP plays an important role in CRS1, but imply hemodynamics alone may not fully explain the pathophysiology of CRS1.

Inflammation

As information about how hemodynamics incompletely predict renal dysfunction in ADHF became available, alternative hypotheses were investigated to gain a deeper understanding of the pathophysiology underlying CRS1. A pathological role of inflammation in CRS1 has gained attention due to recent publications. First of all, serum levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF-a and IL-6 were elevated in patients with CRS1 when compared to health controls [12]. Interestingly, Virzi et al showed that the median value of IL-6 was 5 times higher in CRS1 patients when compared to ADHF patients without renal dysfunction [13]. The negative consequences of elevated serum cytokines were demonstrated when incubation of a human cell line of monocytes with serum from CRS1 patients induced apoptosis in 81% of cells compared to just 11% of cells with control serum [12]. It is possible that cytokine-induced apoptosis could occur in other cell types in different organs in patients with CRS1, which may contribute to both cardiac and renal dysfunction. Finally, analysis from a rat model of CRS1 revealed macrophage infiltration into the kidneys and increased numbers of activated monocytes in the peripheral blood. Interestingly, monocyte/macrophage depletion using liposome clodronate prevented chronic renal dysfunction in the rat model [14]. In summary, these data suggest inflammation contributes to CRS1 pathophysiology, but more experimental data is needed to determine if there is a causal relationship.

Oxidative Stress

Very recently, oxidative stress was proposed to play a role in CRS1. Virzi et al analyzed serum levels of markers of oxidative stress and compared ADHF patients without renal impairment to CRS1 patients. The markers of oxidative stress, which included myeloperoxidase, nitric oxide, copper/zinc superoxide dismutase, and endogenous peroxidase, were all significantly higher in CRS1 patients [13]. While provocative, the tissues responsible for the generation of these molecules and the subsequent effects have not yet been fully elucidated.

Prognostication

Severity of Acute Kidney Injury

Initial publications did not document a strong link between kidney injury and poor outcomes in ADHF. Firstly, Ather et al performed a single-centered study that investigated how change in renal function defined by change in creatinine, estimated GFR, and BUN affected outcomes one year post admission for ADHF. Kidney injury defined by a change in creatinine or in estimated GFR was not associated with increased risk of mortality, but a change in BUN was associated with increased mortality in a univariate analysis [15]. Testani et al retrospectively analyzed patients from the ESCAPE trial and found worsening renal function defined by a ≥ 20% reduction in estimated GFR was not significantly associated with 180-day mortality, but there was a trend towards higher mortality (hazard ration 1.4; P = 0.11) [16]. Importantly, neither of 2 these studies assessed how severity of AKI impacted outcomes, which may have contributed to the weak relationships observed.

Diuretic Responsiveness

Voors et al performed a retrospective analysis of diuretic responsiveness in 1161 patients from the Relaxin in Acute Heart Failure (RELAX-AHF) trial. Diuretic responsiveness was defined as weight change (kg) per diuretic dose (IV furosemide and PO furosemide) over 5 days and then patients were separated into tertiles. The lowest tertile group had an approximate 20% incidence of 60-day combined end-point of death, heart failure or renal failure readmission compared to less than 10% incidence in the middle and upper tertiles. Interestingly, when the effects of worsening renal function (WRF), defined as creatinine change of ≥ 0.3 mg/dL, were examined in patients stratified by diuretic response, WRF did not offer additional prognostic information [19].

Finally, Valenete et al analyzed diuretic response in 1745 patients from the PROTECT trial (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A1-Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function). Diuretic response was calculated using the weight change per 40 mg of furosemide, and as diuretic response declined there was increasing risk of 60-day rehospitalization and 180-day mortality rates. In fact, the lowest quintile responders had a 25% mortality rate at 180 days [20].

Emerging Biomarkers

Urine Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin

Because previous studies showed urinary levels of NGAL was an earlier and more reliable marker of renal dysfunction than creatinine in AKI [21], it was studied as a possible biomarker for the development of CRS1 in ADHF. A single-centered study quantified levels of urine NGAL in 100 patients admitted with heart failure and then tracked the rates of acute kidney injury. Urine NGAL was elevated in patients that developed AKI and a cut-off value 12 ng/mL had a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 67% for predicting CRS1 [22]. While promising, further studies are needed to better define the role of NGAL in CRS1.

Cystatin C

Cystatin C is a ubiquitously expressed cysteine protease that has a constant production rate and is freely filtered by the glomerulus without being secreted into the tubules, and has effectively prognosticated outcomes in ADHF [23]. Lassus et al showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.2 (2.0–5.3) for 12-month mortality when cystatin C levels were elevated. Moreover, patients with the highest tertitle of NT-proBNP and cystatin C had a 48.7% 1-year mortality. Interestingly, patients with an elevated cystatin C but normal creatinine had a 40.6% 1-year mortality compared to 12.6% for those with normal cystatin C and creatinine [24]. Furthermore, Arimoto et al showed elevated cystatin C predicted death or rehospitalization in a small cohort of ADHF patients in Japan [25]. Also, Naruse et al showed cystatin C was a better predictor of cardiac death than estimated GFR by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD) equation [26]. Finally, Manzano-Fernandez et al showed the highest tertile of cystatin C was a significant independent risk factor for 2-year death or rehospitalization while creatinine and MDRD estimates of GFR were not [27]. In agreement with Lassus et al, elevations in either 2 or 3 of cystatin C, troponin, and NT-proBNP predicted death or rehospitalization when compared to those with normal levels of these 3 markers [27]. In conclusion, cystatin C either alone or in combination with other biomarkers identifies high-risk patients.

Kidney Injury Molecule 1

Kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1) is a type-1 cell membrane glycoprotein expressed in regenerating proximal tubular cells but not under normal conditions [28]. Although associated with increased risk of hospitalization and mortality in chronic heart failure [29,30], elevated levels of urinary KIM-1 did not predict mortality in ADHF [31]. Further studies are needed to elucidate the utility of KIM-1 in CRS1.

Treatment Approaches

Diuretics

Loop diuretics are the main treatment for decongestion of patients with CRS1. To date, no clinical trial has compared the different loop diuretics (furosemide, bumetanide, torsemide, or ethacrynic acid) to each other, so there is no clear choice of which loop diuretic is the best. However, dosing scheme was investigated in the Dose Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE) trial. In this trial, 308 patients were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 design in which patients were placed in groups with low-dose (equivalent to oral dose) or high-dose (2.5 times oral dose) intermittent parental therapy or alternatively low-dose or high-dose continuous drip therapy. There were no differences in dyspnea, fluid changes, change in creatinine, hospital length stay, or rehospitalization and death rates when the intermittent and drip approaches were compared. However, the high-dose arm had decreased dyspnea, increased volume removal, but there were more occurrences of AKIs when compared to the low-dose arm [32].

In clinical practice, if loop diuretic treatment does not result in the desired urine output, a second-site diuretic may be added to potentiate diuresis. Unfortunately, there is little data on this common clinical practice and thus the optimal choice of second site agent (chlorthiazide or metolazone) is unknown. Frequently, the deciding factor is based upon cost or concern that oral absorption of metolazone will be ineffective. However, Moranville et al recently performed a retrospective assessment comparing chlorthiazide (22 patients) to metolazone (33 patients) in ADHF patients with renal dysfunction defined by a creatinine clearance of 15–50 mL/min. There was a nonsignificant trend towards increased urine output in the metolazone group, no differences in the rates of adverse events, and the chlorthiazide group actually had a longer hospital stay [33]. While potentially promising results, the retrospective nature of the study made it difficult to determine if the differences were due to treatment approach or dissimilarities of patient illness. Nonetheless, physicians must remain vigilant when implementing the second-site diuretic approach because it can lead to marked diuretic response leading to metabolic derangements including hypokalemia, hyponatremia, hypomagnesaemia, and metabolic alkalosis.

Inotropes

The use of inotropic agents such as dobutamine or milrinone can be used to augment cardiac function when there is a known low-output state for better renal perfusion in CRS1. Unfortunately, there is little objective data available about the utility of this widely implemented approach. The Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Intravenous Milrinone for Exacerbations of a Chronic Heart Failure (OPTIME-HF) trial did not show improved renal function with milrinone treatment [34]. The use of levosimendan, a cardiac calcium sensitizer that increases contractility not currently approved in the United States, was compared to dobutamine in the Survival of Patients With Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial, and there were no differences in rates of renal failure when the 2 groups were compared [35]. Nonetheless, if cardiac output is severely compromised, inotropes can be used for CRS1 treatment, but they should be used cautiously due the increased risks of lethal arrhythmias.

Dopamine

Use of low-dose dopamine to stimulate D1 and D2 receptors as a way to increase renal blood flow and promote increased glomerular filtration and urine production was extensively studied in ADHF. A small trial showed use of low dose dopamine had renal protective effects in a total of 20 patients [36]. However, when larger trials were conducted, such beneficial results were not consistently observed. The Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (DAD-HF I) trial compared low-dose furosemide plus low-dose dopamine (5 µg/kg/min) to high-dose furosemide alone in 60 patients. There were no differences in total diuresis, hospital stay, and 60-day mortality or rehospitalization rates, but there was a reduction in the renal dysfunction at the 24-hour time point in the dopamine-treated arm (6.7% versus 30%) [37]. The Dopamine in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure II trial randomized 161 ADHF patients to high-dose furosemide, low-dose furosemide and lose dose dopamine (5 µg/kg/min), or low-dose furosemide and assessed dyspnea, worsening renal function, length of stay, 60-day and one-year all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure. Dopamine treatment did not improve any of the outcomes measured [38]. Finally, the most recent trial to examine the effects of dopamine was the Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation (ROSE) trial. In this trial, there were 360 patients with ADHF randomized to nesiritide or dopamine versus placebo in a 2:1 design. When comparing dopamine (111 patients) treatment to placebo (115 patients), there were no differences in urine output, renal function as determined by cystatin C levels, or symptomatic improvements. However, there was more tachycardia in the dopamine group [39]. Currently, there is not strong evidence supporting routine use of dopamine in CRS1.

Nesiritide

Use of nesiritide, recombinant brain natriuretic peptide, was also investigated as a way to enhance urine production through the natriuretic effects of the peptide. The first attempt to explore this hypothesis was the B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Cardiorenal Decompensation Syndrome (BNP-CARDS) trial. BNP-CARDS showed a 48-hour infusion of nesiritide (39 patients) or placebo (36 patients) in patients with ADHF and renal dysfunction (estimated GFR between 15–60 mL/min) did not reduce the incidence of worsening renal function as defined by a rise in serum creatinine by 20% [40]. A similar approach was implemented in the Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial which examined over 7000 patients with ADHF. 3496 patients were treated with nesiritide and 3511 patients were treated with placebo for 24 hours and up to 7 days. Nesiritide treatment did not alter dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, improve renal function as determined by creatinine change, or alter the combined end-point of rehospitalization or death 30 at days [41]. The ROSE trial examined the effects of nesiritide (117 patients) versus placebo (115 patients) for urine production, change in renal function as defined by change in cystatin C, and decongestion (urinary sodium excretion, weight change, and change in NT-proBNP) at 72 hours. Nesiritide did not alter any of the outcomes investigated [39]. Finally, a single-centered study conducted at the Mayo Clinic examined the effects of nesiritide (37 patients) or placebo (35 patients) with ADHF and pre-existing renal dysfunction (estimated GFR between 20 and 60 mL/min). These investigators found nesiritide treatment resulted in less renal dysfunction as measured by creatinine and BUN, but no changes in diuretic responsiveness, duration of hospitalization, or rehospitalization rates. Nesiritide did reduce serum endothelin levels, but had no effect on ANP, NT-pro BNP, renin, angiotensin II, or aldosterone [42]. In summary, nesiritide does not appear to have significant renal protective effects in ADHF.

Adenosine A1 Receptor Antagonists

The use of adenosine receptor antagonists to prevent adenosine-mediated vasoconstriction of renal vasculature in ADHF has also been examined. The first study conducted was a small double-blind randomized-controlled trial that investigated the effects of rolofylline, an adenosine A-1 antagonist, in patients with ADHF and an estimated creatinine clearance of 20-80 mL/min. The study had 27 patients in the placebo arm, 29 patients that received 2.5 mg of rolofylline, 31 patients received 15 mg of rolofylline, 30 patients received 30 mg of rolofylline, and 29 patients received 60 mg of rolofylline, all of which was daily for up to 3 days. Rolofylline treatment increased urine output on day 1 and improved renal function on day 2 [43]. These positive results led to the Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of Selective Adenosine A1 Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function (PROTECT) Trial. PROTECT assessed the effects of rolofylline (1356) or placebo (677) in patients with ADHF and an estimated creatinine clearance between 20 and 80 mL/min. There were no significant differences in renal function out to 14 days, but rolofylline led to more weight loss than placebo [44,45]. In a subgroup analysis of patients with severe baseline renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance of less than 30 mL/min), rolofylline reduced the combined 60-day end-point of hospitalization due to cardiovascular or renal cause and death [45]. Finally, the Effects of KW-3902 Injectable Emulsion on Heart Failure Signs and Symptoms, Diuresis, Renal Function, and Clinical Outcomes in Subjects Hospitalized with Worsening Renal Function and Heart Failure Requiring Intravenous Therapy (REACH-UP) trial probed the effects of rolofylline (36 patients) or placebo (40 patients) in patients with ADHF and renal impairment (creatinine clearance of 20-60 mL/min). Rolofylline treatment did not alter renal function, but there was a nonsignificant trend towards reduction in 60-day combined end-point of hospitalization due to renal or cardiovascular causes or death [46]. In summary, the use of rolofylline has not been conclusively associated with improved outcomes in CRS1.

Vasopressin Antagonists

The use of vasopressin antagonists to induce aquaphoresis and combat hyponatremia was studied in ADHF. Vasopressin antagonists were first investigated in the Acute and Chronic Therapeutic Impact of a Vasopressin Antagonist (ACTIV) trial. ACTIV involved 3 doses of tolvaptan (78 patients received 30 mg, 84 patients received 60 mg, and 77 patients received 90 mg) versus placebo (80 patients), and tolvaptan increased urine production and decreased body weight compared to placebo without compromising renal function. A post-hoc analysis of patients with renal dysfunction (BUN > 29 mg/dL) and severe volume overload revealed a survival benefit at 60 days [47]. The Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVERST) trial compared placebo (2061 patients) versus 30 mg/day of tolvaptan (2072 patients) within 48 hours after admission in an identical 2-trial design. Tolvaptan increased weight loss and reduced dyspnea acutely but did not alter all-cause mortality or cardiovascular or heart failure hospitalization rates out to 24 months post index hospitalization [48,49]. These data suggest vasopressin antagonists may potentiate diuresis acutely but likely do not improve long-term outcomes.

Corticosteroids

The use of corticosteroids in ADHF has been controversial as there were initial concerns that corticosteroids would increase fluid retention. However, corticosteroids augmented diuretic response and improved renal function in 13 ADHF patients who had inadequate response to sequential nephron blockage [50]. Furthermore, Zhang et al showed that prednisone treatment in 35 patients admitted with ADHF increased urinary volume, reduced dyspnea, reduced uric acid, and improved renal function [51]. These promising results led to the Cardiac Outcome Prevention Effectiveness of Glucocorticoids in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (COPE-ADHF) trial. In this single-centered study, 102 patients with ADHF were randomized to either placebo [51] or corticosteroids [51] and the outcomes recorded included urinary volume, change in creatinine, and cardiovascular death at 30 days. Use of corticosteroids improved renal function, increased urine output, and reduced mortality (3/51 in corticosteroid group versus 10/51 in the placebo group) [52]. The mechanisms underlying the improvements with corticosteroids were not determined, but were hypothesized to be facilitation of natriuretic peptides or dilation of renal vasculature through activation of nitric oxide pathway or dopaminergic system.

Serelaxin

Serelaxin is a recombinantly expressed human relaxin-2, a peptide hormone present during pregnancy which facilitates physiological cardiovascular and renal adaptations [53–55], which showed potential benefits in CRS1. Analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial revealed serelaxin reduced incidence of worsening renal function at day 2 of treatment as defined by changes in serum creatinine, cystatin C, and BUN. Importantly, worsening renal function defined by cystatin C changes was associated with increased 180-day mortality in this analysis [56]. The mechanisms by which serelaxin prevented renal dysfunction are currently unknown as serelaxin treatment did not improve diuretic efficiency [19].

Ultrafiltration

Another treatment choice in CRS1 is mechanical removal of salt and water via ultrafiltration. Ultrafiltration showed early promise in Ultrafiltration Versus Intravenous Diuretics for Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure trial (UNLOAD) trial. In this study, 200 patients with ADHF were randomized to either ultrafiltration or medical management with loop diuretics. Use of ultrafiltration increased volume removal without any differences in renal function and reduced rehospitalization rates at 90 days [57].

However, when ultrafiltration was employed specifically in CRS1 patients in the Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure trial (CARESS-HF), UF was not superior to medical treatment. There were 188 patients studied in CARESS-HF, and in the ultrafiltration arm there was increased risk of renal dysfunction, no differences in volume removal, and no change in rehospitalization rates at 90 days [58]. When trying to reconcile UNLOAD and CARESS-HF, the medical treatment arm in CARESS-HF was much more standardized and aggressive and UNLOAD was earlier implementation of ultrafiltration, which may have explained the differences. Interestingly, ultrafiltration was hypothesized to be advantageous over diuretic therapy through reduced activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, but analysis of the patients from CARESS-HF showed higher levels of plasma renin activity and no difference in aldosterone levels in ultrafiltration patients [59].

Two meta-analyses have examined the use of ultrafiltration versus medical management in ADHF and both showed ultrafiltration was more effective in volume removal than medical therapy but did not improve rehospitalization or mortality rates [60,61]. This fact combined with the risks of vascular access placement and bleeding from anticoagulation limits to routine use of ultrafiltration in CRS1.

Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

Once renal function deteriorates to the point that renal replacement therapy is needed for both volume removal and solute clearance in CRS1, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) may be implemented. Unfortunately, there are few available data for this group of advanced CRS1 patients to guide physicians. There was a single-centered study conducted in Egypt that randomized 40 ADHF patients to either IV furosemide or CRRT. The patients treated with CRRT had greater weight loss and decreased length of stay in the ICU, but there were no differences in dialysis dependence rates or 30-day mortality [62]. Two single-centered studies reported outcomes associated with advanced CRS1 requiring CRRT. In a study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic, 63 patients with CRS1 were treated with ultrafiltration, of which 37 were converted to CRRT due to worsening renal function. Of the 37 patients treated with CRRT, 16 died in the hospital and 4 were discharged with hospice care [63]. In another retrospective study performed at the University of Alabama-Birmingham, use of rescue CRRT in advanced CRS1 was examined in 37 patients. 23 patients died during hospitalization and 2 were discharged to hospice care [64]. Combination of the Cleveland Clinic and University of Alabama-Birmingham studies revealed patients requiring CRRT in the setting of advanced CRS1 had an in-hospital mortality or palliative discharge rate of 60.8% (45/74). Clearly, this population needs further investigation to prevent such poor outcomes.

Future Treatment Options

Ongoing and Unreported Clinical Trials

Unfortunately, none of the current treatments for CRS1 have definitive improvements in outcomes, but there are several ongoing clinical trials which will hopefully identify novel treatment strategies. First of all, the Acetazolamide and Spironolactone to Increase Natriuresis in Congestive Heart Failure (Diuresis-CHF) trial is being conducted in Belgium. This study will examine the effects of acetazolamide with low dose diuretic versus high dose diuretics in one aim and the effects of upfront spironolactone in another. The outcomes analyzed will include total natriuresis, potassium homeostasis, NT-proBNP changes, change in renal function, peak serum levels of renin and aldosterone, weight change, urine volume, and change in edema (NCT01973335). The Protocolized Diuretic Strategy in Cardiorenal Failure (ProDius) trial is being performed at the University of Pittsburgh, and will determine the effects of a protocolized diuretic approach to target 3-5 liters of urine production a day versus standard therapy and will track the change in body weight, length of hospitalization, reshospitalization rates, mortality rates, venous compliance of internal jugular vein, clinical decongestion, change in renal function, and urine output (NCT01921829). The Levosimendan versus Dobutamine for Renal Function in Heart Failure (ELDOR) study is ongoing in Sweden and will probe the acute effects of levosimendan and dobutamine on renal perfusion. The endpoints will include changes in renal blood flow, GFR, renal vascular resistance, central hemodynamics, renal oxygen extraction and consumptions, and filtration fraction (NCT02133105). Finally, the Safety and Efficacy of Low Dose Hypertonic Saline and High Dose Furosemide for Congestive Heart Failure (REaCH) trial probed the effects of combination of hypertonic saline and furosemide versus furosemide in patients with ADHF and renal impairment defined by a GFR<60 mL/min. The outcomes were change in renal function, diuretic response, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, weight loss, BNP levels, and included a cost analysis. The study was completed but results are not currently available (NCT01028170)

Should Inflammation Be Targeted in CRS1?

Although proposed to play a role in the pathophysiology of CRS1, inflammation has not been explicitly targeted as a treatment for CRS1. One possible way to combat inflammation could be inhibition of the IL-6 pathway, which is support by preclinical work as previous studies showed IL-6 knockout mice were resistant to HgCl₂-induced renal injury and death [65] and IL-6 has negative inotropic effects in both isolated cardiomyocytes [66] and intact animals [67]. Thus, IL-6 antagonism may improve both cardiac and renal function, an ideal scenario for CRS1 patients. The availability of tocilizumab, an FDA-approved humanized antibody to the IL-6 receptor, may allow for investigation of this hypothesis in the future. Although not examined in the COPE-ADHF trial, an alternative explanation for the improvements associated with corticosteroids treatment were the anti-inflammatory effects. If this were true, corticosteroids would represent a relatively cheap treatment option for CRS1 patients, but more studies need to be conducted before this approach is widely implemented. Finally, use of cytokine profiling may be used to enrich a population of CRS1 patients that could be investigated in future clinical trials using anti-inflammatory medications.

Unanswered Questions Moving Forward

Severity of AKI and Treatment Effects

An important unknown that warrants further investigation is if the severity of AKI should dictate treatment choice in CRS1. As discussed above, increasing severity of AKI resulted in elevated risk of adverse events, but it remains unknown whether different treatments offer benefits for more or less severe renal impairment. Perhaps, future studies aimed at defining outcomes from different treatment strategies stratified by severity of renal dysfunction may reveal which patients benefit from the various treatment options for CRS1.

How Do We Best Define Renal Dysfunction in CRS1?

Currently, there is no accepted definition of renal dysfunction in CRS1. As discussed above, using the AKIN, KDIGO, or RIFLE scoring systems or diuretic responsiveness effectively differentiated outcomes in patients with CRS1. However, an agreed-upon definition would likely benefit the field going forward so this population could be systematically investigated in future studies.

Conclusion

In summary, CRS1 is a common clinical entity associated with poor patient outcomes. A complex pathophysiology marked by reduced cardiac output, increased central venous pressure, inflammation, and oxidative stress underlies the disease process. Unfortunately, no current treatment approach shows consistent improvements in outcomes, highlighting the urgent need for further research to reduce the burden that CRS1 imposes.

Corresponding author: Kurt W. Prins, MD, PhD, MMC 580 Mayo, 420 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, [email protected].

Funding/support: Dr. Prins is funded by NIH F32 grant HL129554 and Dr. Thenappen is funded by AHA Scientist Development Grant 15SDG25560048.

VAGINAL/RECTAL PROBES FOR LAPAROSCOPYBanyan Medical’s Vaginal/Rectal Probes are low-cost reusable instruments used to enhance accurate anatomical visualization during gynecologic surgery. They are designed to be easily positioned to maximize anatomical visualization during excision of lesions from the posterior vagina, rectum, and cul-de-sac. According to the manufacturer, use of one of their probes ensures maximum accuracy; assists in opening the rectovaginal pouch and mapping of the cul-de-sac; can be used to help identify open vessels and other injuries; and acts as a mobilizer when dissecting, cauterizing, and suturing.

Banyan Medical assures that its vaginal/rectal probes are easy to sterilize and ergonomic. Probes have color-coded handles, surgical-grade stainless steel shafts, and atraumatic tips made of high-grade polymer.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://banyanmedllc.com

ONLINE EDUCATIONAL VIDEO RESOURCEDoctablet is an online educational video resource that offers animated narratives in English and Spanish that describe medical conditions to patients. Jose M. Taveras, MD, a cardiologist at Montefiore Center for Heart and Vascular Care in New York and Christopher R. Palmeiro, MD, chairman of endocrinology at HealthAlliance of the Hudson Valley in Kingston, New York, have developed this free educational platform, which they describe as easily accessible, comprehensive, and entertaining.

Drs. Taveras and Palmeiro note that they created Doctablet to educate people about crucial health issues. They cite the pressures of shrinking budgets and the fact that physicians have less time for individualized care and education and that all too often a patient leaves her physician’s office without clear and direct crucial information.

“I’ve found myself telling little simple stories to my patients to illustrate various heart conditions. They’ve really helped—I’ve seen people quit smoking and seen people become proactive in taking their medication,” says Dr. Taveras. “The way to seriously impact patients, and reduce the need for procedures, is to change the way people live. You do that through taking the time to educate them in a way that makes sense to them.”

The patient-oriented videos are “jargon-free,” approximately 3 minutes in length, and cover health topics such as prediabetes and diabetes, nutrition, and cardiac care and heart attacks.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.doctablet.com

FERTILITY-FRIENDLY LUBRICANTPre-Seed^® Fertility-Friendly Lubricant is specially formulated for couples trying to conceive. Pre-Seed was invented by a sperm physiologist who discovered that many couples were using lubricants that killed sperm. The National Institutes of Health funded research to develop Pre-Seed’s patented sperm-safe lubricant formula. In a January 2014 clinical study published in The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Mowat and colleagues analyzed the effects of 9 lubricants on sperm motility, vitality, and DNA fragmentation. The study authors named Pre-Seed as the leading lubricant of choice for couples who are trying to get pregnant.

Pre-Seed’s design mimics fertile cervical mucus in its pH, ion concentration, and consistency, says its inventor. In addition, Pre-Seed is glycerin-free to allow sperm to swim freely and formulated with antioxidants to help support sperm on their journey to fertilize the egg. Pre-Seed is available nationally at major drug and discount stores, and is offered by select regional and Internet retailers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.preseed.com

SONOHYSTEROGRAPHY DEVICECrossBay Medical Inc.™ offers SonoSure™, a single-use, disposable device to access the uterine cavity for saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and endometrial sampling. The product is designed to assist in the evaluation of a patient with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) or heavy menstrual periods.

CrossBay says that SonoSure is meant for single-handed use during concurrent ultrasonography. The device features a built-in deployed endometrial sampling brush, a low profile malleable insertion catheter, a repositionable cervical sealing mechanism for uterine distension designed to not obscure the lower uterine segment, and a 50-cc refillable fluid injection bag.

During SIS, the shapeable catheter with soft acorn tip can be used with anteversion or retroversion placement and provides uterine distention upon infusion and release for draining without the use of forceps. The echogenic tip and brush allow for visualization during insertion and placement. The blunt tip is designed to avoid uterine perforation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://crossbaymedicalinc.com/products/crossbay-women/sonosure

VAGINAL/RECTAL PROBES FOR LAPAROSCOPYBanyan Medical’s Vaginal/Rectal Probes are low-cost reusable instruments used to enhance accurate anatomical visualization during gynecologic surgery. They are designed to be easily positioned to maximize anatomical visualization during excision of lesions from the posterior vagina, rectum, and cul-de-sac. According to the manufacturer, use of one of their probes ensures maximum accuracy; assists in opening the rectovaginal pouch and mapping of the cul-de-sac; can be used to help identify open vessels and other injuries; and acts as a mobilizer when dissecting, cauterizing, and suturing.

Banyan Medical assures that its vaginal/rectal probes are easy to sterilize and ergonomic. Probes have color-coded handles, surgical-grade stainless steel shafts, and atraumatic tips made of high-grade polymer.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://banyanmedllc.com

ONLINE EDUCATIONAL VIDEO RESOURCEDoctablet is an online educational video resource that offers animated narratives in English and Spanish that describe medical conditions to patients. Jose M. Taveras, MD, a cardiologist at Montefiore Center for Heart and Vascular Care in New York and Christopher R. Palmeiro, MD, chairman of endocrinology at HealthAlliance of the Hudson Valley in Kingston, New York, have developed this free educational platform, which they describe as easily accessible, comprehensive, and entertaining.

Drs. Taveras and Palmeiro note that they created Doctablet to educate people about crucial health issues. They cite the pressures of shrinking budgets and the fact that physicians have less time for individualized care and education and that all too often a patient leaves her physician’s office without clear and direct crucial information.

“I’ve found myself telling little simple stories to my patients to illustrate various heart conditions. They’ve really helped—I’ve seen people quit smoking and seen people become proactive in taking their medication,” says Dr. Taveras. “The way to seriously impact patients, and reduce the need for procedures, is to change the way people live. You do that through taking the time to educate them in a way that makes sense to them.”

The patient-oriented videos are “jargon-free,” approximately 3 minutes in length, and cover health topics such as prediabetes and diabetes, nutrition, and cardiac care and heart attacks.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.doctablet.com

FERTILITY-FRIENDLY LUBRICANTPre-Seed^® Fertility-Friendly Lubricant is specially formulated for couples trying to conceive. Pre-Seed was invented by a sperm physiologist who discovered that many couples were using lubricants that killed sperm. The National Institutes of Health funded research to develop Pre-Seed’s patented sperm-safe lubricant formula. In a January 2014 clinical study published in The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Mowat and colleagues analyzed the effects of 9 lubricants on sperm motility, vitality, and DNA fragmentation. The study authors named Pre-Seed as the leading lubricant of choice for couples who are trying to get pregnant.

Pre-Seed’s design mimics fertile cervical mucus in its pH, ion concentration, and consistency, says its inventor. In addition, Pre-Seed is glycerin-free to allow sperm to swim freely and formulated with antioxidants to help support sperm on their journey to fertilize the egg. Pre-Seed is available nationally at major drug and discount stores, and is offered by select regional and Internet retailers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.preseed.com

SONOHYSTEROGRAPHY DEVICECrossBay Medical Inc.™ offers SonoSure™, a single-use, disposable device to access the uterine cavity for saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and endometrial sampling. The product is designed to assist in the evaluation of a patient with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) or heavy menstrual periods.

CrossBay says that SonoSure is meant for single-handed use during concurrent ultrasonography. The device features a built-in deployed endometrial sampling brush, a low profile malleable insertion catheter, a repositionable cervical sealing mechanism for uterine distension designed to not obscure the lower uterine segment, and a 50-cc refillable fluid injection bag.

During SIS, the shapeable catheter with soft acorn tip can be used with anteversion or retroversion placement and provides uterine distention upon infusion and release for draining without the use of forceps. The echogenic tip and brush allow for visualization during insertion and placement. The blunt tip is designed to avoid uterine perforation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://crossbaymedicalinc.com/products/crossbay-women/sonosure

VAGINAL/RECTAL PROBES FOR LAPAROSCOPYBanyan Medical’s Vaginal/Rectal Probes are low-cost reusable instruments used to enhance accurate anatomical visualization during gynecologic surgery. They are designed to be easily positioned to maximize anatomical visualization during excision of lesions from the posterior vagina, rectum, and cul-de-sac. According to the manufacturer, use of one of their probes ensures maximum accuracy; assists in opening the rectovaginal pouch and mapping of the cul-de-sac; can be used to help identify open vessels and other injuries; and acts as a mobilizer when dissecting, cauterizing, and suturing.

Banyan Medical assures that its vaginal/rectal probes are easy to sterilize and ergonomic. Probes have color-coded handles, surgical-grade stainless steel shafts, and atraumatic tips made of high-grade polymer.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://banyanmedllc.com

ONLINE EDUCATIONAL VIDEO RESOURCEDoctablet is an online educational video resource that offers animated narratives in English and Spanish that describe medical conditions to patients. Jose M. Taveras, MD, a cardiologist at Montefiore Center for Heart and Vascular Care in New York and Christopher R. Palmeiro, MD, chairman of endocrinology at HealthAlliance of the Hudson Valley in Kingston, New York, have developed this free educational platform, which they describe as easily accessible, comprehensive, and entertaining.

Drs. Taveras and Palmeiro note that they created Doctablet to educate people about crucial health issues. They cite the pressures of shrinking budgets and the fact that physicians have less time for individualized care and education and that all too often a patient leaves her physician’s office without clear and direct crucial information.

“I’ve found myself telling little simple stories to my patients to illustrate various heart conditions. They’ve really helped—I’ve seen people quit smoking and seen people become proactive in taking their medication,” says Dr. Taveras. “The way to seriously impact patients, and reduce the need for procedures, is to change the way people live. You do that through taking the time to educate them in a way that makes sense to them.”

The patient-oriented videos are “jargon-free,” approximately 3 minutes in length, and cover health topics such as prediabetes and diabetes, nutrition, and cardiac care and heart attacks.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.doctablet.com

FERTILITY-FRIENDLY LUBRICANTPre-Seed^® Fertility-Friendly Lubricant is specially formulated for couples trying to conceive. Pre-Seed was invented by a sperm physiologist who discovered that many couples were using lubricants that killed sperm. The National Institutes of Health funded research to develop Pre-Seed’s patented sperm-safe lubricant formula. In a January 2014 clinical study published in The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Mowat and colleagues analyzed the effects of 9 lubricants on sperm motility, vitality, and DNA fragmentation. The study authors named Pre-Seed as the leading lubricant of choice for couples who are trying to get pregnant.

Pre-Seed’s design mimics fertile cervical mucus in its pH, ion concentration, and consistency, says its inventor. In addition, Pre-Seed is glycerin-free to allow sperm to swim freely and formulated with antioxidants to help support sperm on their journey to fertilize the egg. Pre-Seed is available nationally at major drug and discount stores, and is offered by select regional and Internet retailers.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.preseed.com

SONOHYSTEROGRAPHY DEVICECrossBay Medical Inc.™ offers SonoSure™, a single-use, disposable device to access the uterine cavity for saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) and endometrial sampling. The product is designed to assist in the evaluation of a patient with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) or heavy menstrual periods.

CrossBay says that SonoSure is meant for single-handed use during concurrent ultrasonography. The device features a built-in deployed endometrial sampling brush, a low profile malleable insertion catheter, a repositionable cervical sealing mechanism for uterine distension designed to not obscure the lower uterine segment, and a 50-cc refillable fluid injection bag.

During SIS, the shapeable catheter with soft acorn tip can be used with anteversion or retroversion placement and provides uterine distention upon infusion and release for draining without the use of forceps. The echogenic tip and brush allow for visualization during insertion and placement. The blunt tip is designed to avoid uterine perforation.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: http://crossbaymedicalinc.com/products/crossbay-women/sonosure

In 2016, the conversation over the safety of duodenoscopes has continued to evolve. Here’s what you need to know:

1. On Jan. 15, 2016, FDA approved a modified version of Olympus’ duodenoscope (TJF-Q180V), which has been redesigned to create a tighter seal and reduce the potential for leakage of patient fluids and tissue into the scope’s closed elevator channel. The previous reprocessing instructions remain in place; FDA urges facilities to continue to follow the validated manual reprocessing procedures outlined in the March 26, 2015, Safety Communication when reprocessing Olympus TJF-Q180V duodenoscopes.

2. Following FDA’s approval of its redesign, Olympus announced that it would recall all 4,400 of its TJF-Q180V model duodenoscopes in use around the country and replace the existing elevator mechanism with one designed to be less vulnerable to contamination.

3. Meanwhile, Senate minority staff have issued a report highlighting the need for additional oversight of medical devices, noting that the outbreak of antibiotic-resistant infections from duodenoscopes demonstrates the importance of multiple checks.

4. FDA has developed a web page specifically highlighting automated endoscope reprocessors (AERs), which provides a list of the companies whose AERs have passed the agency’s validation testing for reprocessing and decontaminating duodenoscopes.

Michael L. Kochman, M.D., AGAF, FASGE, chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, offers his comments on this news: “The recent announcements from Congress, FDA, and Olympus are welcomed. These announcements demonstrate that “Getting to Zero” is a priority for all parties to ensure that we are using the safest possible devices for our patients. It is reassuring that modifications to existing devices are being developed and that the responsible agencies are proactively adjusting recommendations in view of new data and findings. We anticipate additional changes to the devices and reprocessing recommendations and our members should stay tuned and be vigilant.”

AGA will continue to keep you updated on this important issue. As always, our goal is to ensure patients continue to have access to this medically necessary procedure, while removing any risk of device-transmitted infections.

In 2016, the conversation over the safety of duodenoscopes has continued to evolve. Here’s what you need to know:

1. On Jan. 15, 2016, FDA approved a modified version of Olympus’ duodenoscope (TJF-Q180V), which has been redesigned to create a tighter seal and reduce the potential for leakage of patient fluids and tissue into the scope’s closed elevator channel. The previous reprocessing instructions remain in place; FDA urges facilities to continue to follow the validated manual reprocessing procedures outlined in the March 26, 2015, Safety Communication when reprocessing Olympus TJF-Q180V duodenoscopes.

2. Following FDA’s approval of its redesign, Olympus announced that it would recall all 4,400 of its TJF-Q180V model duodenoscopes in use around the country and replace the existing elevator mechanism with one designed to be less vulnerable to contamination.

3. Meanwhile, Senate minority staff have issued a report highlighting the need for additional oversight of medical devices, noting that the outbreak of antibiotic-resistant infections from duodenoscopes demonstrates the importance of multiple checks.

4. FDA has developed a web page specifically highlighting automated endoscope reprocessors (AERs), which provides a list of the companies whose AERs have passed the agency’s validation testing for reprocessing and decontaminating duodenoscopes.

Michael L. Kochman, M.D., AGAF, FASGE, chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, offers his comments on this news: “The recent announcements from Congress, FDA, and Olympus are welcomed. These announcements demonstrate that “Getting to Zero” is a priority for all parties to ensure that we are using the safest possible devices for our patients. It is reassuring that modifications to existing devices are being developed and that the responsible agencies are proactively adjusting recommendations in view of new data and findings. We anticipate additional changes to the devices and reprocessing recommendations and our members should stay tuned and be vigilant.”

AGA will continue to keep you updated on this important issue. As always, our goal is to ensure patients continue to have access to this medically necessary procedure, while removing any risk of device-transmitted infections.

In 2016, the conversation over the safety of duodenoscopes has continued to evolve. Here’s what you need to know:

1. On Jan. 15, 2016, FDA approved a modified version of Olympus’ duodenoscope (TJF-Q180V), which has been redesigned to create a tighter seal and reduce the potential for leakage of patient fluids and tissue into the scope’s closed elevator channel. The previous reprocessing instructions remain in place; FDA urges facilities to continue to follow the validated manual reprocessing procedures outlined in the March 26, 2015, Safety Communication when reprocessing Olympus TJF-Q180V duodenoscopes.

2. Following FDA’s approval of its redesign, Olympus announced that it would recall all 4,400 of its TJF-Q180V model duodenoscopes in use around the country and replace the existing elevator mechanism with one designed to be less vulnerable to contamination.

3. Meanwhile, Senate minority staff have issued a report highlighting the need for additional oversight of medical devices, noting that the outbreak of antibiotic-resistant infections from duodenoscopes demonstrates the importance of multiple checks.

4. FDA has developed a web page specifically highlighting automated endoscope reprocessors (AERs), which provides a list of the companies whose AERs have passed the agency’s validation testing for reprocessing and decontaminating duodenoscopes.

Michael L. Kochman, M.D., AGAF, FASGE, chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, offers his comments on this news: “The recent announcements from Congress, FDA, and Olympus are welcomed. These announcements demonstrate that “Getting to Zero” is a priority for all parties to ensure that we are using the safest possible devices for our patients. It is reassuring that modifications to existing devices are being developed and that the responsible agencies are proactively adjusting recommendations in view of new data and findings. We anticipate additional changes to the devices and reprocessing recommendations and our members should stay tuned and be vigilant.”

AGA will continue to keep you updated on this important issue. As always, our goal is to ensure patients continue to have access to this medically necessary procedure, while removing any risk of device-transmitted infections.

Blood in bags and vials

Photo by Daniel Gay

Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions do not increase the risk of a serious intestinal disorder in very low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants, according to a study published in JAMA.

Past research has suggested RBC transfusions increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) among VLBW infants.

But other studies have shown no association between transfusions and NEC or suggested transfusions actually have a protective effect.

So researchers set out to determine whether RBC transfusions or severe anemia were associated with the rate of NEC among VLBW infants. The results suggested a significant association for severe anemia but not RBC transfusion.

To conduct this study, Ravi M. Patel, MD, of the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues assessed 598 VLBW infants from 3 neonatal intensive care units in Atlanta.

The team followed the infants for 90 days or until they were discharged from the hospital, transferred to a non-study-affiliated hospital, or died (whichever came first).

Forty-four (7.4%) infants developed NEC, and 32 (5.4%) died (of any cause). Roughly half of the infants (n=319, 53%) received RBC transfusions (n=1430).

The unadjusted cumulative incidence of NEC at week 8 was 9.9% in infants who received transfusions and 4.6% in those who did not.

However, in multivariable analysis, exposure to RBC transfusion in a given week was not significantly related to the rate of NEC. The hazard ratio was 0.44 (P=0.09).

On the other hand, the rate of NEC was significantly higher among infants with severe anemia in a given week than in those without severe anemia. The hazard ratio was 5.99 (P=0.001).

The researchers said these results suggest preventing severe anemia may be more clinically important than minimizing the use of RBC transfusion as a strategy to decrease the risk of NEC in VLBW infants.

However, such a strategy might impact other important neonatal outcomes, so further study is needed.

Blood in bags and vials

Photo by Daniel Gay

Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions do not increase the risk of a serious intestinal disorder in very low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants, according to a study published in JAMA.

Past research has suggested RBC transfusions increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) among VLBW infants.

But other studies have shown no association between transfusions and NEC or suggested transfusions actually have a protective effect.

So researchers set out to determine whether RBC transfusions or severe anemia were associated with the rate of NEC among VLBW infants. The results suggested a significant association for severe anemia but not RBC transfusion.

To conduct this study, Ravi M. Patel, MD, of the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues assessed 598 VLBW infants from 3 neonatal intensive care units in Atlanta.

The team followed the infants for 90 days or until they were discharged from the hospital, transferred to a non-study-affiliated hospital, or died (whichever came first).

Forty-four (7.4%) infants developed NEC, and 32 (5.4%) died (of any cause). Roughly half of the infants (n=319, 53%) received RBC transfusions (n=1430).

The unadjusted cumulative incidence of NEC at week 8 was 9.9% in infants who received transfusions and 4.6% in those who did not.

However, in multivariable analysis, exposure to RBC transfusion in a given week was not significantly related to the rate of NEC. The hazard ratio was 0.44 (P=0.09).

On the other hand, the rate of NEC was significantly higher among infants with severe anemia in a given week than in those without severe anemia. The hazard ratio was 5.99 (P=0.001).

The researchers said these results suggest preventing severe anemia may be more clinically important than minimizing the use of RBC transfusion as a strategy to decrease the risk of NEC in VLBW infants.

However, such a strategy might impact other important neonatal outcomes, so further study is needed.

Blood in bags and vials

Photo by Daniel Gay

Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions do not increase the risk of a serious intestinal disorder in very low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants, according to a study published in JAMA.

Past research has suggested RBC transfusions increase the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) among VLBW infants.

But other studies have shown no association between transfusions and NEC or suggested transfusions actually have a protective effect.

So researchers set out to determine whether RBC transfusions or severe anemia were associated with the rate of NEC among VLBW infants. The results suggested a significant association for severe anemia but not RBC transfusion.

To conduct this study, Ravi M. Patel, MD, of the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues assessed 598 VLBW infants from 3 neonatal intensive care units in Atlanta.

The team followed the infants for 90 days or until they were discharged from the hospital, transferred to a non-study-affiliated hospital, or died (whichever came first).

Forty-four (7.4%) infants developed NEC, and 32 (5.4%) died (of any cause). Roughly half of the infants (n=319, 53%) received RBC transfusions (n=1430).

The unadjusted cumulative incidence of NEC at week 8 was 9.9% in infants who received transfusions and 4.6% in those who did not.

However, in multivariable analysis, exposure to RBC transfusion in a given week was not significantly related to the rate of NEC. The hazard ratio was 0.44 (P=0.09).

On the other hand, the rate of NEC was significantly higher among infants with severe anemia in a given week than in those without severe anemia. The hazard ratio was 5.99 (P=0.001).

The researchers said these results suggest preventing severe anemia may be more clinically important than minimizing the use of RBC transfusion as a strategy to decrease the risk of NEC in VLBW infants.

However, such a strategy might impact other important neonatal outcomes, so further study is needed.