Characteristics of Patients With Improvement or Worsening in Renal Function During Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Worsening renal function (RF) and improved RF during the treatment of decompensated heart failure have traditionally been thought of as hemodynamically distinct events. We hypothesized that if the pulmonary artery catheter-derived measures are relevant in the evaluation of cardiorenal interactions, the comparison of patients with improved versus worsening RF should highlight any important hemodynamic differences. All subjects in the Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness trial limited data set with admission and discharge creatinine values available were included (n = 401). No differences were found in the baseline, final, or change in pulmonary artery catheter-derived hemodynamic variables, inotrope and intravenous vasodilator use, or survival between patients with improved versus worsening RF (p = NS for all). Both groups were equally likely to be in the bottom quartile of cardiac index (p = 0.32), have a 25% improvement in cardiac index (p = 0.97), or have any worsening in cardiac index (p = 0.90). When patients with any significant change in renal function (positive or negative) were compared to those with stable renal function, strong associations between variables such as a reduced cardiac index (odds ratio 2.2, p = 0.02), increased intravenous inotrope and vasodilator use (odds ratio 2.9, p <0.001), and worsened all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.8, p = 0.01) became apparent. In contrast to traditionally held views, the patients with improved RF and those with worsening RF had similar hemodynamic parameters and outcomes. Combining these groups identified a hemodynamically compromised population with significantly worse survival than patients with stable renal function. In conclusion, the changes in renal function, regardless of the direction, likely identify a population with an advanced disease state and a poor prognosis. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2010;106:1763-1769)