4.4 Article

Serum potassium and heart failure: association, causation, and clinical implications

期刊

HEART FAILURE REVIEWS
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 479-486

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-020-10039-9

关键词

Potassium; Hyperkalemia; Hypokalemia; Heart failure; Morbidity; Mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses the impact of hypo- and hyperkalemia in patients with heart failure, suggesting that low potassium and low-normal potassium levels may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes, while a cause-and-effect relationship between hyperkalemia and adverse clinical outcomes is less likely. The study recommends maintaining serum potassium levels within the range of 4.0-5.0 mmol/L in HF.
Dyskalemia (hypo- and hyperkalemia) is a common clinical encounter in patients with heart failure (HF), linked to underlying pathophysiologic alterations, pharmacological treatments, and concomitant comorbidities. Both hypo- and hyperkalemia have been associated with a poor outcome in HF. However, it is not known if this association is causal. In order to investigate this relation, we implemented the Bradford Hill criteria for causation examining the available literature. Of note, hypokalemia and low-normal potassium levels (serum potassium < 4.0 mmol/L) appear to be associated with adverse clinical outcomes in HF in a cause-and-effect manner. Conversely, a cause-and-effect relationship between hyperkalemia (serum potassium > 5.0 mmol/L) and adverse clinical outcomes in HF appears unlikely. We also examined the benefits of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) therapy uptitration in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. In fact, hyperkalemia often limits RAASi use, thereby negating or mitigating their clinical benefits. Finally, serum potassium levels in HF should be maintained within the range of 4.0-5.0 mmol/L, and although the correction of hyperkalemia does not appear to improve clinical outcomes per se, it may enable the optimal titration of RAASi, offering indirect clinical benefit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据