4.5 Article

Association between intestinal oedema and oral loop diuretic resistance in hospitalized patients with acute heart failure

Journal

ESC HEART FAILURE
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages 4067-4076

Publisher

WILEY PERIODICALS, INC
DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.13525

Keywords

Intestine; Heart failure; Diuretic; Outcome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In hospitalized patients with acute heart failure, there is a strong correlation between the severity of intestinal edema, required maintenance doses of loop diuretics, and poor responsiveness to oral loop diuretics upon admission.
Aims Intestinal oedema is one of the manifestations associated with right-sided heart failure (HF), which is known to be associated with poorer patient outcomes. We attempted to reveal the association between intestinal oedema and diuretic resistance in hospitalized patients with acute HF. Methods and results Among 213 hospitalized patients with acute HF, abdominal ultrasonography was performed under clinically stable conditions after initial HF treatments. The association among abdominal ultrasonographic parameters, maintenance doses of loop diuretics, and responsiveness to initial loop diuretic treatment was evaluated. Higher mean colon wall thickness (CWT) independently correlated with a higher dose of loop diuretics at enrolment (adjusted beta = 0.198, P = 0.0004). Increased mean CWT also correlated with poor response to oral loop diuretics as an initial treatment, whereas it did not correlate with the response to intravenous loop diuretics. Discrimination of non-responders to initial oral loop diuretics resulted in a sensitivity of 0.772 and a specificity of 0.733 using a mean CWT cut-off value of >= 3 mm. Conclusions In hospitalized patients with acute HF, a strong correlation was identified among the severity of intestinal oedema, required quantities as maintenance loop diuretic doses, and poor responsiveness to oral loop diuretics at admission.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available