4.4 Article

Effect of Right Ventricular Function and Venous Congestion on Cardiorenal Interactions During the Treatment of Decompensated Heart Failure

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 105, 期 4, 页码 511-516

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.10.020

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [T32 HL007843, T32 HL007843-15] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent reports have demonstrated the adverse effects of venous congestion on renal function (RF) and challenged the assumption that worsening RF is driven by decreased cardiac output (CO). We hypothesized that diuresis in patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction, despite decreased CO, would lead to a decrease in venous congestion and resultant improvement in RF. We reviewed consecutive admissions with a discharge diagnosis of heart failure. RV function was assessed by multiple echocardiographic methods and those with >= 2 measurements of RV dysfunction were considered to have significant RV dysfunction. Worsening RF was defined as an increase in creatinine of >= 0.3 mg/dl and improved RF as improvement in glomerular filtration rate >= 25%. A total of 141 admissions met eligibility criteria; 34% developed worsening RF. Venous congestion was more common in those with RV dysfunction (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, p = 0.009). All measurements of RV dysfunction excluding RV dilation correlated with CO (p <0.05). Significant RV dysfunction predicted a lower incidence of worsening RF (OR 0.21, p <0.001) and a higher incidence of improved RF (OR 6.4, p <0.001). CO emerged as a significant predictor of change in glomerular filtration rate during hospitalization in those without significant RV dysfunction (r = 0.38, p <0.001). In conclusion, RV dysfunction is a strong predictor of improved renal outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure, an effect likely mediated by relief of venous congestion. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2010;105:511-516)

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