Skip to main content

Benefits of peritoneal ultrafiltration in HFpEF and HFrEF patients

Abstract

Background

Peritoneal ultrafiltration (pUF) in refractory heart failure (HF) reduces the incidence of decompensation episodes, which is of particular significance as each episode incrementally adds to mortality. Nevertheless, there are insufficient data about which patient cohort benefits the most. The objective of this study was to compare pUF in HFrEF and HFpEF, focusing on functional status, hospitalizations, surrogate endpoints and mortality.

Methods

This study involves 143 patients, who could be classified as either HFpEF (n = 37, 25.9%) or HFrEF (n = 106, 74.1%) and who received pUF due to refractory HF.

Results

Baseline eGFR was similar in HFrEF (23.1 ± 10.6 mg/dl) and HFpEF (27.8 ± 13.2 mg/dl). Significant improvements in NYHA class were found in HFpEF (3.19 ± 0.61 to 2.72 ± 0.58, P <  0.001) and HFrEF (3.45 ± 0.52 to 2.71 ± 0.72, P <  0.001). CRP decreased in HFrEF (19.4 ± 17.6 mg/l to 13.7 ± 21.4 mg/l, P = 0.018) and HFpEF (33.7 ± 52.6 mg/l to 17.1 ± 26.3 mg/l, P = 0.004). Body weight was significantly reduced in HFrEF (81.1 ± 14.6 kg to 77.2 ± 15.6 kg, P = 0.003) and HFpEF (86.9 ± 15.8 kg to 83.1 ± 15.9 kg, P = 0.005). LVEF improved only in HFrEF (25.9 ± 6.82% to 30.4 ± 12.2%, P = 0.046). BCR decreased significantly in HFrEF and HFpEF (55.7 ± 21.9 to 34.3 ± 17.9 P > 0.001 and 50.5 ± 68.9 to 37.6 ± 21.9, P = 0.006). Number of hospitalization episodes as well as number of hospitalization days decreased significantly only in HFpEF (total number 2.88 ± 1.62 to 1.25 ± 1.45, P <  0.001, days 40.4 ± 31.7 to 18.3 ± 22.5 days, P = 0.005).

Conclusions

pUF offers various benefits in HFpEF and HFrEF, but there are also substantial differences. In particular, hospitalization rates were found to be significantly reduced in HFpEF patients, indicating a greater medical and economical advantage. However, LVEF was only found to be improved in HFrEF patients. While pUF can now be regarded as an option to supplement classical HF therapy, further studies are desirable to obtain specifications about pUF in HFpEF, HFmEF and HFrEF patients.

Peer Review reports

Background

The global prevalence of heart failure (HF) is increasing, due to ageing populations, insufficiently controlled cardiovascular risk factors as well as prolonged survival in consequence of evidence-based treatments [1]. The rising frequency of HF leads to growing problems – medically, economically and ethically.

Especially in patients over 60 years, HF is the main reason for hospitalization [2]. In the US, 30 day all cause readmission rate is 19%. In Europe 1-year rehospitalization rates run up to 44%, while 32% of outpatients experience a first hospitalization [3].

HF can be classified as heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) (LVEF < 40%), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and recently heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmEF, LVEF 40–55%). Prognosis of HF is known to be rather poor: Overall 1-year mortality is 8.8% in HFrEF and 6.3% in HFpEF [4]. HF index admission mortality is around 10% with a post-discharge 30-day and 1-year mortality of 6.5 and 30%, respectively [5]. It has to be noted, that HFrEF therapy is based on a wide range of studies yielding a sound basis for an evidence-based medical approach [6, 7], while HFpEF therapy is largely devoid of any scientific evidence.

The cardiorenal syndrome is an overarching pathophysiology in HF, irrespective of EF [1, 8,9,10,11]. It is associated with worse outcome with more than 40% of all-cause mortality being attributable to this co-morbid situation and which represents the main driver for recurrent hospitalizations [12,13,14,15].

Due to critical changes in intraglomerular filtration pressures, renal venous congestion and arterial underfilling both lead to “excretory renal insufficiency” with an inadequate volume control triggering recurring hydropic decompensations [10, 14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Importantly, neurohormonal imbalance in HF contributes to these hydropic decompensations by hindering adequate excretion of sodium and water. Therefore, loop diuretics are recommended in current guidelines as first line therapy in patients with acute and chronic decompensated HF (ESC, AHA, ACCF) [6, 7]. Main focus is symptom relief and co-morbidity therapy, suggesting UF or haemofiltration as possible treatment option but fail to specify any details [22]. However, until now no evidence has emerged on superiority of extracorporeal UF compared to diuretic strategies [23,24,25,26,27,28].

Peritoneal UF (pUF) in patients with in end stage HF and refractory congestion can offer an additional treatment option [29] and is associated with improved New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification and reduced hospitalizations, as we could demonstrate in our previous study [30]. Although frequently used and suggested by the German Societies of Cardiology and Nephrology for treatment of patients with chronic refractory cardiorenal syndrome [31], no data are available whether outcome in HF patients treated with pUF differs with respect to the underlying cardiac pathophysiology and which patient cohort would clinically benefit the most from pUF.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine possible advantages and disadvantages of pUF treatment in HFpEF versus HFrEF (according to ESC 2012) [1].

Methods

This is a substudy of our prospective observational multicentre study, based on the national registry data of the German Society of Nephrology (DGfN), to evaluate the efficacy of pUF in patients with refractory HF, this time focusing on HFpEF and HFrEF. One hundred forty-three patients with symptomatic end-stage CHF, classified as either HFpEF or HFrEF, were enrolled in ambulatory pUF therapy after interdisciplinary assessment. Enrolment period took place between January 2010 and December 2014. The inclusion criteria are listed below:

  1. a)

    Individually optimized pharmacological therapy according to the recommendation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) [1]

  2. b)

    Diuretic resistance defined as refractory hypervolemia despite optimal sequential diuretic therapy (loop diuretics, thiazides and, if possible, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) as recommended by national authorities [1, 28]

  3. c)

    Device therapy as indicated by current guidelines [1]

  4. d)

    Recurrent hospitalizations due to cardiac decompensation, at least 2x within the last 6 months

  5. e)

    Patients not eligible for heart transplantation

Exclusion criteria for this study were defined as standard contraindications for pUF as well as inotropic support [28]. The registry did not include any acute peritoneal dialysis (PD) initiations on ICU. The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation was used to calculate renal function, as estimated by glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

Before confirming the indication for pUF, patients received optimization of conservative medical HF therapy and echocardiography to determine LVEF. It was sought to formerly exclude diagnosis of specific renal pathologies e.g. glomerulonephritis.

Patients were carefully instructed after implantation of a peritoneal dialysis catheter. pUF modalities were continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD), automated PD (APD) or intermittent PD (IPD). Study visits were scheduled at initiation of pUF, at 3 and 6 months, and subsequently in 6 months periods. Primary end-point of the study was defined as all-cause hospitalizations.

All patients provided written informed consent prior to study enrolment. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of Heidelberg (reference number S-106/2011).

Statistical analysis were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24 and Microsoft Excel 2011, including Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test or Students t-test for paired variables, Levene’s test, Pearson’s correlation, as well as Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test (level of significance α = 5%).

Results

The study population included 143 patients with a median follow-up time of 302 days (range 9 to 2357). According to ESC 2012 [1], 106 patients were classified as HFrEF (EF < 40%) (74.1%) and 37 patients were classified as HFpEF (EF > 40%) (25.9%). Patient characteristics and treatment modalities of both study groups are demonstrated in Table 1.

Table 1 Baseline patient characteristics. Medical and demographic data. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or number

Pre-pUF, 51 HFrEF patients (47.7%) and 20 HFpEF patients (54.1%) received cardiac catheterization. In 57 HFrEF patients (53.3%) and 9 HFpEF patients (23.3%) an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was implanted. 11 HFrEF patients (10.3%) and 5 HFpEF patients (13.5%) required precursory intermittent haemodialysis before starting pUF, main reasons were acute hypervolemia or hyperkalaemia (in HFrEF mean duration of haemodialysis 11.9 ± 1.96 h per week, or 3 times a week with average period of 3.97 ± 0.65 h, respectively; average blood flow 235.0 ± 24.2 ml/min, in HFpEF mean duration of haemodialysis 14.8 ± 6.38 h per week, or 3 times a week with average period of 4.93 ± 2.13 h, respectively; average blood flow 293.3 ± 11.6 ml/min).

Treatment modality at the beginning of pUF was mainly CAPD in both groups (HFrEF 50.9% and HFpEF 48.6%). Average Kt/V was 2.62 ± 1.81 in HFrEF and 2.20 ± 0.89 in HFpEF. 10 HFrEF (9.35%) and 3 HFpEF patients (8.12%) required intermittent haemodialysis at different time points after beginning of pUF. 25 HFrEF patients (23.6%) and 11 HFpEF patients (29.7%) received Icodextrin.

Laboratory results are demonstrated in Table 2. The mean within-person change of NTproBNP was more pronounced in HFpEF (− 379 ng/l, relative change − 7%) than in HFrEF (absolute − 2133 ng/l, relative change − 0.5%) patients.

Table 2 Laboratory variables at baseline and after beginning of pUFa

Creatinine increased significantly in HFpEF group (2.65 ± 1.29 mg/dl to 4.00 ± 2.15 mg/dl, P = 0.008) while MDRD revealed a slight decrease (27.8 ± 13.2 ml/min/1.73 m2 to 19.5 ± 15.4 ml/min/1.73 m2, P = 0.0042). BUN declined more sustained in HFrEF patients (HFrEF 145.4 ± 68.0 mg/dl to 102.9 ± 42.1 mg/dl, P <  0.001). BUN/creatinine ratio (BCR) declined significantly in both groups (HFrEF 55.7 ± 21.9 to 34.3 ± 17.9 P > 0.001 and HFpEF (50.5 ± 68.9 to 37.6 ± 21.9, P = 0.006).

CRP improved in HFrEF and HFpEF with pUF treatment. Albumin remained unchanged over all.

Follow-up results of clinical variables after beginning of pUF are shown in Table 3. Comparing HFpEF and HFrEF, there were no significant differences regarding pUF and urine volume. Body weight improved in both groups significantly (HFpEF 86.9 ± 15.8 kg to 83.1 ± 15.9, P = 0.005 and HFrEF 81.1 ± 14.6 kg to 77.2 ± 15.6, P = 0.003) (Fig. 1).

Table 3 Clinical variables at baseline and after beginning of pUFa. Median, standard deviation and students t-test for paired variables. Mean and Wilcoxon signed-rank text for not normally contributed paired variables
Fig. 1
figure 1

Comparison of body weight (1a), relative change of body weight (1b) urine (1c) and peritoneal ultrafiltration (1d) after starting pUF in HFrEF and HFpEF. Not significant

Regarding medication, use of MRA slightly decreased in HFrEF patients (37.4 to 32.0%) and increased in HFpEF patients (35.1 to 47.4%). Use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs decreased (HFrEF 54.2 to 39.7% vs. HFpEF 54.1 to 41.2%) during first year after starting pUF. Meanwhile, use of beta blockers increased during this period (HFrEF 64.5 to 77.6% vs. HFpEF 56.8 to 65.4%).

13 HFrEF patients (12.1%) and 8 HFpEF patients (21.6%) were treated with erythropoiesis stimulation agents (ESA) pre-pUF. This number increased to 18.6% in HFpEF and 37.5% in HFrEF at 12 months. In patients without ESAs or being on stable dosages of ESAs, we initially detected a significant increase of haemoglobin after 3 months (HFrEF from 11.3 ± 1.74 mg/dl to 11.9 ± 1.71 mg/dl, P = 0.024 and HFpEF from 10.8 1.68 to 11.7 ± 2.12, P = 0.038). Results improved but without significance at the end of the observation period of max. Seventy-two months (HFrEF 11.6 ± 2.09 mg/dl, P = 0.614, HFpEF 11.2 ± 2.40 mg/dl, P = 0.105).

Focusing on heart failure entity, 12 months prior to pUF, no differences in number of hospitalizations (P = 0.809) and days in hospital (P = 0.746) were detected among HFrEF and HFpEF. After initiation of pUF, total number (2.88 ± 1.62 to 1.25 ± 1.45, P = 0.001) and days of hospitalizations (40.4 ± 31.7 to 18.3 ± 22.5, P = 0.005) significantly decreased in HFpEF, but not in HFrEF patients (2.79 ± 1.70 to 2.09 ± 1.85, P = 0.062; 38.5 ± 27.5 to 29.8 ± 25.9, P = 0.092, respectively) (Fig. 2a and b).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Number of hospitalizations per year after starting pUF for patients with HFrEF and HFpEF (2a) and days of hospitalizations per year after starting pUF for patients with HFrEF and HFpEF (2b). *** P <  0.001 and ** P <  0.01

NYHA improved both in HFrEF (3.45 ± 0.52 to 2.71 ± 0.72, P <  0.001) and in HFpEF (3.19 ± 0.61 to 2.72 ± 0.58, P <  0.001) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

NYHA classification after starting pUF in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. *** P <  0.001, ** P <  0.01 and * P <  0.05

HFrEF patients displayed significantly improved LVEF (25.9 ± 6.83% to 30.4 ± 12.2%, P = 0.046).

Average time until death was 439.0 ± 471.9 days in HFrEF and 392.9 ± 373.2 days in HFpEF. 4 HFrEF patients recompensated and 1 HFrEF patient received kidney transplantation and therefore intermittently stopped pUF treatment. In addition, 7 HFrEF and 5 HFpEF patients changed medical centres for different reasons, and 38 HFrEF and 12 HFpEF were lost to follow-up. The registry data did not record complications systemically, but in our previous study, we demonstrated that nearly no cardiac decompensations occurred with pUF [32].

There was no significant mortality difference between HFpEF and HFrEF after starting pUF (Fig. 4) (first year Log-rank = 0.968) and second year (Log-rank = 0.830). Similarly, there was no significant difference in mortality between ICMP and DCMP [33] (first year Log-rank = 0.142 and second year Log-rank = 0.242 respectively).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Cumulative survival of HFpEF and HFrEF 2 years after starting pUF therapy

Discussion

This substudy confirms that pUF therapy potentially yields differential outcomes in HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Our findings demonstrate that particularly in HFpEF, but not so in HFrEF patients, pUF significantly reduced both number and days of hospitalization for all causes. The 30-day all-cause readmission rate is still 19% for HF patients [34] and the 1-year hospitalization rate runs up to 43.9% and 31.9%, in HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively. From a medical as well as an economic point of view pUF may prove especially beneficial in HFpEF patients as it contributes to lower healthcare costs by reducing in-hospital days [35, 36]. To date it is unclear what this finding might be related to, but one may speculate that the burden of cardiorenal interaction is even more pronounced in HFpEF as the incidence of pulmonary hypertension and renal dysfunction is slightly higher in this HF subgroup [37, 38].

Various studies on pUF described 1-year mortality rates between 18% and 44% with conventional treatment [39,40,41]. Wang et al. confirmed an increased mortality of HF patients with pUF treatment, which appeared even more pronounced in case of HFrEF [42]. In our study, however, we did not find any difference regarding 1- and 2 year mortality or between ICMP and DCMP patients, which is most likely related to a highly variable comorbidity load between studies [30].

Our observations correspond with previous results, as NYHA classification improved significantly with pUF in all groups [43]. This symptomatic improvement translated only to significant changes in LVEF in HFrEF patients, which corresponds with findings of Courivaud et al. [41]. On first sight the impact of pUF on change/improvement of EF might depend on baseline EF. In former studies, however, it was demonstrated that LVEF does not add significant prognostic information in patients with advanced CKD [44]. Accordingly, the subgroup analysis of 1- and 2- year mortality did not reveal any difference between DCMP and ICMP patients or between HFpEF and HFrEF patients as far as EF is concerned.

Independent from HF classification, an overall significant weight loss was documented. This finding has to be differentiated, as weight loss may on the one hand be seen as a marker for better volume management due to additional UF with remained urine output. On the other hand weight loss may be regarded as a marker for muscle loss and malnutrition, as PD patients lose several grams of protein per day via the dialysate. In this context it is important to note that albumin levels representing a strong predictor of survival remained within the normal range. We thus conclude that pUF therapy indeed leads to an improved volume management without triggering a significant wasting syndrome. The potential loss of proteins is obviously compensated by an improved resorption of nutritional components when the intraabdominal compartment is decongested as mentioned below.

Interestingly, a low BUN is associated with a significantly improved prognosis in HF patients [45,46,47]. In our cohort pUF treatment resulted in decreased BUN/creatinine ratios (BCR), more pronounced in HFrEF patients. BCR can be regarded as a more powerful predictor of survival among HF patients with renal dysfunction than conventional renal function measures [48]. But contrary to literature, we observed in patients with HFrEF a lower BCR but no significant decrease in hospitalizations. This conflicting observation might be caused by the more pronounced elimination of BUN with pUF.

Moreover, we found weight loss to be accompanied by significantly lowered CRP and BUN levels in both groups. eGFR slightly decreased especially in HFpEF patients, potentially reflecting a sustained loss of oedema. As interstitial oedema in the intra-abdominal compartment is known to trigger both the translocation of LPS with ensuing secondary inflammation and to impede resorption of nutritional compounds, it can cause profound cachexia [49]. So not only theoretically, pUF allows an intracorporeal, gentle and continuous UF to relieve the reno-venous and intra-abdominal pressure overload while draining ascites and interstitial oedema [50, 51]. This potentially aids to stabilize the remaining glomerular filtration rate and helps to decrease inflammation. These findings might be one of the main advantages as compared to extracorporeal haemofiltration strategies, where rapid intravascular fluid removal causes sympathetic counteractivation with a deterioration of renal function and where intraabdominal congestion is not influenced.

Despite the positive combination of reduced dyspnoea (reflected by improved NYHA classification) and increased weight loss, serial NTproBNP values remained unaffected throughout the study. Looking at the within-person variation instead of the rather large between-person variation [52], however, revealed a different picture: The relative NTproBNP levels decreased in both groups, indicating the positive effects of pUF treatment in CHF, although this effect was more pronounced in HFpEF patients.

Another important aspect is that medical HF therapy in patients with CKD is frequently limited by hyperkalaemia, so patients are less likely to receive effective dosages of ACE inhibitors or ARBs [53]. Interestingly, patients with pUF often display a mild hypokalaemia, which may represent an additional advantage over haemodialysis as it offers the chance to reach a dosage of RAAS blockers or MRAs that would accord to the guidelines [22]. In our patient cohort, initially an adequate medical HF therapy was possible only in 35–54% of patients. Use of ACE/ARBs decreased but use of MRAs increased in HFpEF patients with pUF. Use of beta blockers increased in both groups. Further studies are needed to give clarification about a potential benefit of higher dosage of MRA and beta blockers in this special patient cohort.

Finally, some limitations should be noted. The study comprises a relatively small patient cohort, while cardiorenal patients were included from 18 different centres. This all-comers population may thus have resulted in a highly heterogeneous collective that does not allow the exclusion of potential biases. Heterogeneity, however, is a problem always inherent to the HF syndrome which is driven by the complex situation of multiple comorbidities. In our recent publication [29] we therefore chose to analyse the Charlson Comorbidity Score that revealed a halving of the expected mortality. Moreover, the reduced hospital admissions may have been counterbalanced by the complexity of pUF therapy, which should have been controlled for by a standardized quality of life assessment. Our previous study, however, invalidates this objection by demonstrating an improved quality of life with pUF [32]. Finally, the fact that pUF patients received a rather close monitoring might have resulted in an improved outcome on its own.

Conclusion

To conclude, in our study all congestive HF patients clinically improved. While HFpEF patients might in particular benefit the most with respect to hospitalization, HFrEF patients experienced an improvement concerning EF. This study thus warrants larger controlled studies in order to elaborate the differential effects of pUF as an adjunct palliative therapy in end stage HF. With regard to HFpEF patients it may be especially rewarding to gain more insight concerning the specific cardio-pulmo-renal interactions as this clinical entity still is in search for evidence based therapeutic approach.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Gnädig. B. but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of DGfN and Schwenger V. as well as Remppis A.

Abbreviations

ACE:

Angiotensin converting enzyme

ARB:

Angiotensin II receptor blocker

BUN:

Blood urea nitrogen

BCR:

BUN Creatinine ratio

CAPD:

Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

CKD:

Chronic kidney disease

DGfN:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nephrologie

ESC:

European Society of Cardiology

CRP:

C Reactive protein

DCMP:

Dilated cardiomyopathy

EF:

Ejection fraction

eGFR:

estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

HF:

Heart failure

HFpEF:

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

HFrEF:

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

ICMP:

Ischemic cardiomyopathy

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

MDRD:

Modification of diet in renal disease

MRA:

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist

NYHA:

New York Heart Association

PD:

Peritoneal dialysis

pUF:

peritoneal Ultrafiltration

RAAS:

Renin angiotensin aldosterone system

UF:

Ultrafiltration

References

  1. McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, Auricchio A, Bohm M, Dickstein K, Falk V, Filippatos G, Fonseca C, Gomez-Sanchez MA, Jaarsma T, Kober L, Lip GY, Maggioni AP, Parkhomenko A, Pieske BM, Popescu BA, Ronnevik PK, Rutten FH, Schwitter J, Seferovic P, Stepinska J, Trindade PT, Voors AA, Zannad F, Zeiher A. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1787–847.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Braunwald E. Heart failure. JACC Heart Fail 2013; 1: 1–20.3. Maggioni AP, Dahlstrom U, Filippatos G et al. EURObservational research Programme: regional differences and 1-year follow-up results of the heart failure pilot survey (ESC-HF pilot). Eur J Heart Fail 2013; 15: 808–817.

  3. Crespo-Leiro MG, Anker SD, Maggioni AP, et al. European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Long-Term Registry (ESC-HF-LT): 1-year follow-up outcomes and differences across regions. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:613–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Donkor A, Cleland J, McDonagh T, Hardman S. National Heart Failure Audit. 2016; 11.07.2016.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the heart failure association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2129–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2013;128:1810–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002; 39:S1–266.

  8. McMurray JJ. Chronic kidney disease in patients with cardiac disease: a review of evidence-based treatment. Kidney Int. 2005;68:1419–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hillege HL, Girbes AR, de Kam PJ, Boomsma F, de Zeeuw D, Charlesworth A, Hampton JR, van Veldhuisen DJ. Renal function, neurohormonal activation, and survival in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2000;102:203–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McAlister FA, Ezekowitz J, Tonelli M. Armstrong PW (2004) renal insufficiency and heart failure: prognostic and therapeutic implications from a prospective cohort study. Circulation. 2004;109:1004–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van Deursen VM, Urso R, Laroche C, Damman K, Dahlström U, Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Adriaan A. Voors1 Co-morbidities in patients with heart failure:an analysis of the European Heart Failure PilotSurvey. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16:103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heywood JT, Fonarow GC, Costanzo MR, Mathur VS, Wigneswaran JR, Wynne J. High prevalence of renal dysfunction and its impact on outcome in 118,465 patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure: a report from the ADHERE database. J Card Fail. 2007;13:422–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mullens W, Abrahams Z, Francis GS, Sokos G, Taylor DO, Starling RC, Young JB, Tang WH. Importance of venous congestion for worsening of renal function in advanced decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:589–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Damman K, van Deursen VM, Navis G, Voors AA, van Veldhuisen DJ, Hillege HL. Increased central venous pressure is associated with impaired renal function and mortality in a broad spectrum of patients with cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:582–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bock JS, Gottlieb SS. Cardiorenal syndrome: new perspectives. Circulation. 2010;121:2592–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Testani JM, Khera AV, St John Sutton MG, Keane MG, Wiegers SE, Shannon RP, Kirkpatrick JN. Effect of right ventricular function and venous congestion on cardiorenal interactions during the treatment of decompensated heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:511–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Shamseddin MK, Parfrey PS. Mechanisms of the cardiorenal syndromes. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2009;5:641–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dini FL, Demmer RT, Simioniuc A, Morrone D, Donati F, Guarini G, Orsini E, Caravelli P, Marzilli M, Colombo PC. Right ventricular dysfunction is associated with chronic kidney disease and predicts survival in patients with chronic systolic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012;14:287–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Doty JM, Saggi BH, Blocher CR, Fakhry I, Gehr T, Sica D, Sugerman HJ. Effects of increased renal parenchymal pressure on renal function. J Trauma. 2000;48:874–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ronco C, Haapio M, House AA, Anavekar N, Bellomo R. Cardiorenal syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1527–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH, Feldman AM, Francis GS, Ganiats TG, Jessup M, Konstam MA, Mancini DM, Michl K, Oates JA, Rahko PS, Silver MA, Stevenson LW, Yancy CW. 2009 Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ronco C, McCullough P, Anker SD, Anand I, Aspromonte N, Bagshaw SM, Bellomo R, Berl T, Bobek I, Cruz DN, Daliento L, Davenport A, Haapio M, Hillege H, AA H, Katz N, Maisel A, Mankad S, Zanco P, Mebazaa A, Palazzuoli A, Ronco F, Shaw A, Sheinfeld G, Soni S, Vescovo G, Zamperetti N, Ponikowski P. Cardio-renal syndromes: report from the consensus conference of the acute dialysis quality initiative. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:703–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bart BA, Goldsmith SR, Lee KL, Givertz MM, O'Connor CM, Bull DA, Redfield MM, Deswal A, Rouleau JL, LeWinter MM, Ofili EO, Stevenson LW, Semigran MJ, Felker GM, Chen HH, Hernandez AF, Anstrom KJ, McNulty SE, Velazquez EJ, Ibarra JC, Mascette AM, Braunwald E. Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2296–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Rogers HL, Marshall J, Bock J, Dowling TC, Feller E, Robinson S, Gottlieb SS. A randomized, controlled trial of the renal effects of ultrafiltration as compared to furosemide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. J Card Fail. 2008;14:1–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Costanzo MR, Negoianu D, Fonarow GC, Jaski BE, Bart BA, Heywood JT, Nabut JL, Schollmeyer MP. Rationale and design of the Aquapheresis versus intravenous diuretics and hospitalization for heart failure (AVOID-HF) trial. Am Heart J. 2015;170:471–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Costanzo MR, Guglin ME, Saltzberg MT, Jessup ML, Bart BA, Teerlink JR, Jaski BE, Fang JC, Feller ED, Haas GJ, Anderson AS, Schollmeyer MP, Sobotka PA. Ultrafiltration versus intravenous diuretics for patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:675–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bart BA, Boyle A, Bank AJ, Anand I, Olivari MT, Kraemer M, Mackedanz S, Sobotka PA, Schollmeyer M, Goldsmith SR. Ultrafiltration versus usual care for hospitalized patients with heart failure: the relief for acutely fluid-overloaded patients with decompensated congestive heart failure (RAPID-CHF) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:2043–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grossekettler L, Schmack B, Meyer M, Brockmann C, Wanninger R, Kreusser MM, Frankenstein L, Kihm LP, Zeier M, Katus HA, Remppis A, Schwenger V. Peritoneal dialysis as therapeutic option in heart failure patients. 23ESC Heart Fail. 2019;6:271–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lu R, Mucino-Bermejo MJ, Ribeiro LC, Tonini E, Estremadoyro C, Samoni S, Sharma A, Zaragoza Galvan Jde J, Crepaldi C, Brendolan A, Ni Z, Rosner MH, Ronco C. Peritoneal dialysis in patients with refractory congestive heart failure: a systematic review. Cardiorenal Med. 2015;5:145–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Schwenger V, Remppis BA, Westenfeld R, Weinreich T, Brunkhorst R, Schieren G, Krumme B, Haller H, Schmieder R, Schlieper G, Frye B, Hoppe UC, Hoyer J, Keller T, Blumenstein M, Schunkert H, Mahfoud F, Rump LC. Dialysis and ultrafiltration therapy in patients with cardio-renal syndrome: recommendations of the working group “heart-kidney” of the German cardiac society and the German Society of Nephrology. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2014;139:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Frohlich H, Katus HA, Tager T, Lossnitzer N, Grossekettler L, Kihm L, Zeier M, Remppis A, Frankenstein L, Schwenger V. Peritoneal ultrafiltration in end-stage chronic heart failure. Clin Kidney J. 2015;8:219–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Richardson P, McKenna W, Bristow M, et al. Report of the 1995 World Health Organization/International Society and Federation of Cardiology Task Force on the Definition and Classification of cardiomyopathies. Circulation. 1996;93:841.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bergethon KE, Ju C, DeVore AD, Hardy NC, Fonarow GC, Yancy CW, Heidenreich PA, Bhatt DL, Peterson ED, Hernandez AF. Trends in 30-Day Readmission Rates for Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: Findings From the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2016;9:1–8.

  34. Maggioni AP, Dahlstrom U, Filippatos G, et al. EURObservational research Programme: regional differences and 1-year follow-up results of the heart failure pilot survey (ESC-HF pilot). Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:808–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sens F, Schott-Pethelaz AM, Labeeuw M, Colin C, Villar E. Survival advantage of hemodialysis relative to peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease and congestive heart failure. Kidney Int. 2010;80:970–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rosenkranz S, Gibbs JSR, Wachter R, De Marco T, Vonk-Noodregraaf A, Vachiéry JL. Left ventricular heart failure and pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:942–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith DH, Thorp ML, Gurwitz JH, et al. Chronic kidney disease and outcomes in heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction: the cardiovascular research network PRESERVE study. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6:333–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Sanchez JE, Ortega T, Rodriguez C, Diaz-Molina B, Martin M, Garcia-Cueto C, Vidau P, Gago E, Ortega F. Efficacy of peritoneal ultrafiltration in the treatment of refractory congestive heart failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:605–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Koch M, Haastert B, Kohnle M, Rump LC, Kelm M, Trapp R, Aker S. Peritoneal dialysis relieves clinical symptoms and is well tolerated in patients with refractory heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012;14:530–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Courivaud C, Kazory A, Crepin T, Azar R, Bresson-Vautrin C, Chalopin JM, Ducloux D. Peritoneal dialysis reduces the number of hospitalization days in heart failure patients refractory to diuretics. Perit Dial Int. 2014;34(1):100–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Wang AY, Wang M, Lam CW, Chan IH, Lui SF, Sanderson JE. Heart failure with preserved or reduced ejection fraction in patients treated with peritoneal dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61:975–83:10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cnossen TT, Kooman JP, Krepel HP, Konings CJ, Uszko-Lencer NH, Leunissen KM, van der Sande FM. Prospective study on clinical effects of renal replacement therapy in treatment-resistant congestive heart failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:2794–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stabton T, Leano R, Marwick TH. Prediction of all-cause mortality from global longitudinal speckle strain. Comparison with ejection fraction and wall motion scoring. Circ cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2:356–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Damman K, Testani JM. The kidney in heart failure: an update. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1437–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Heywood JT, Elatre W, Pai RG, Fabbri S, Huiskes B. Simple clinical criteria to determine the prognosis of heart failure. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2005;10:173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Testani JM, Cappola TP, Brensinger CM, Shannon RP, Kimmel SE. Interaction between loop diuretic-associated mortality and blood urea nitrogen concentration in chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:375–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Takaya Y, Yoshihara F, Yokoyama H, Kanzaki H, Kitakaze M, Goto Y, Anzai T, Yasuda S, Ogawa H, Kawano Y. Risk stratification of acute kidney injury using the blood urea nitrogen/creatinine ratio in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Circ J. 2015;79:1520–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Cicoira M, Anker SD, Ronco C. Cardio-renal cachexia syndromes (CRCS): pathophysiological foundations of a vicious pathological circle. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;2:135–42.

  49. Damman K, Solomon SD, Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Yusuf S, Young JB, Rouleau JL, Granger CB, McMurray JJ. Worsening renal function and outcome in heart failure patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and the impact of angiotensin receptor blocker treatment: data from the CHARM-study programme. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18:1508–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mullens W, Nijst P. Cardiac output and renal dysfunction: definitely more than impaired flow. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:2209–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fahim MA, Hayen A, Horvath AR, Dimeski G, Coburn A, Johnson DW, Hawley CM, Campbell SB, Craig JC. N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide variability in stable dialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;10:620–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Berger AK, Duval S, Manske C, Vazquez G, Barber C, Miller L, Luepker RV. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with congestive heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Am Heart J. 2007;153:1064–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Data collection:

Bommersbach, B., MD, Clinic Memmingen, Memmingen, Germany.

Brockmann, C., MD, Medical Center, Bad Bevensen, Germany.

Bunia, J., MD, Practice for Dialysis, Iserlohn, Germany.

Dose, U., MD, Dialysis Center, Siegburg, Germany.

Frankenstein, L, MD, PhD, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Germany.

Hintzen-Kruse, C., MD, Clinic Chemnitz Nephrology, Chemnitz, Germany.

Kreusser, M.M., MD, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Germany.

Kihm, L.P., MD, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Germany.

Ludwig, S., MD, Werner-Forßmann Clinic, Eberswalde, Germany.

Martin, H., MD, Practice for Dialysis, Germany.

Meyer, K., MD, Heart and Vascular Center, Bad Bevensen, Germany.

Mündle, M., MD, State Hospital Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria.

Remppis, A., MD, Heart and Vascular Center, Bad Bevensen, Germany.

Schillinger-Pokorny, E., MD, Center for Nephrology, Offenburg, Germany.

Tönges, J., MD, Networked Hospitals Bernkastel-Wittlich, Wittlich, Germany.

Tönne, G., MD, Practice for Dialysis, Warendorf, Germany.

Toepfer, M., MD, Dialysis Center Murnau, Weilheim, Garmisch, Germany.

Poludniak, I., Center for Nephrology, Mettmann, Velbert, Hilden, Haa, Germany.

Reinhard, W., MD, Dialysis Center, Papenburg, Germany.

Schwenger V., MD, Katharinenhospital, Stuttgart, Germany.

Wanninger, R., MD, Clinic Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.

Wolf, L., MD, Center for Nephrology, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.

Von Appen, K., MD, Practice for Nephrology, Lohbrügge, Germany.

Zeier, M., MD, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Germany.

Data pseudonymisation:

Gnädig, B., Networked Hospitals Bernkastel-Wittlich, Wittlich, Germany.

Statistical analysis:

Grossekettler, W.R.

Funding

This work was financially supported by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nephrologie e.V. (DGfN). The DGfN helped to compile the register structure. The DGfN was not involved data interpretation or in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

L.F., M.M.K., H.A.K., C.B., R.W., L.P.K., M.Z., A.R. and V.S. acquired patients and generated the data. L.G., A. R, V.S. and B.S. interpreted the data set. L.G., B.S. and L.F. helped with the statistical analysis. B.S., M.M.K, H.A.K., A.R. and V.S. performed proofreading of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonie Grossekettler.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All patients provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of Heidelberg (reference number S-106/2011).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

C.B., L.F., L.G., L.P.K., M.M.K., K.M., A.R., V.S., and M.Z. declare that they have no conflicts of interest. B.S. reports a conference/travel grant from St Jude Medical—HeartWare and a travel grant as well as personal fees from Berlin Heart GmbH, outside the submitted work. R.W. has received personal fees from Baxter Germany and Fresenius Germany. H.A.K. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from NovoNordisk, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche Diagnostics, personal fees from Bayer Vital, outside the submitted work.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grossekettler, L., Schmack, B., Brockmann, C. et al. Benefits of peritoneal ultrafiltration in HFpEF and HFrEF patients. BMC Nephrol 21, 179 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-020-01777-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-020-01777-x

Keywords