BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In the Ultrafiltration versus Intravenous Diuretics for Patients Hospitalized for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure trial, ultrafiltration (UF) removed volume more effectively than usual care (UC). Hypothetically, UF may be superior to UC due to increased sodium (Na) removal and less neurohormonal activation. We compared UF and UC in a randomized pilot trial of target weight guided therapy for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with ADHF were enrolled and target weights established prospectively, prior to randomization to UC or UF. UF patients did not receive diuretics and UC patients were all treated with a continuous furosemide drip. All urine and ultrafiltrate were collected and Na concentrations measured. RESULTS: Similar volumes were removed in UC and UF groups (110105 mL and 107415 mL, respectively) and the UF group also produced 45325 mL of urine. Na concentration was 138+/-6 meq/L in the ultrafiltrate, 85+/-73 meq/L in the UC group's urine, and 26+/-23 meq/L in the UF group's urine. Given the relevant associated volumes, total meq of the Na removed was similar (1168 in UC vs. 1216 in UF). The UF group produced isotonic ultrafiltrate and a higher volume of dilute urine than anticipated. CONCLUSION: In a randomized pilot study of target weight guided therapy with UC or UF for ADHF, there were no differences in total volumes or Na removed, and lengths of hospital stays were similar. Isotonic fluid loss by UF was accompanied by the production of very dilute urine.
Diuretics ; Furosemide ; Heart Failure* ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Pilot Projects* ; Prospective Studies ; Random Allocation ; Sodium* ; Ultrafiltration* ; Weights and Measures

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has revolutionized the care of the patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and electrical dyssynchrony. The current guidelines for patient selection include measurement of left ventricular systolic function, QRS duration and morphology, and functional classification. Despite consistent and increasing evidence supporting CRT use in appropriate patients, CRT has been underutilized. Notwithstanding the heterogeneous definitions of non-response, more than one-third of patients demonstrate a lack of echocardiographic reverse remodeling or poor clinical outcome following CRT. Since the causes of this non-response are multifactorial, it will require multidisciplinary efforts to overcome including optimal patient selection, procedural strategies, as well as optimizing post-implant care in patients undergoing CRT. The innovations of novel pacing approaches combined with advanced imaging technologies may eventually offer a personalized CRT system uniquely tailored to each patient's dyssynchrony signature.
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy ; Classification ; Echocardiography ; Heart Failure ; Humans ; Patient Selection

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has revolutionized the care of the patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and electrical dyssynchrony. The current guidelines for patient selection include measurement of left ventricular systolic function, QRS duration and morphology, and functional classification. Despite consistent and increasing evidence supporting CRT use in appropriate patients, CRT has been underutilized. Notwithstanding the heterogeneous definitions of non-response, more than one-third of patients demonstrate a lack of echocardiographic reverse remodeling or poor clinical outcome following CRT. Since the causes of this non-response are multifactorial, it will require multidisciplinary efforts to overcome including optimal patient selection, procedural strategies, as well as optimizing post-implant care in patients undergoing CRT. The innovations of novel pacing approaches combined with advanced imaging technologies may eventually offer a personalized CRT system uniquely tailored to each patient's dyssynchrony signature.

Background and Objectives: Moderate aortic stenosis (AS) confers a surprisingly adverse prognosis, approaching that of severe AS. The objective of this study was to describe the clinical course of patients with moderate AS with evidence of concomitant heart failure manifesting as elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 332 patients with elevated BNP. 165 patients with moderate AS were compared with 167 controls with none-mild AS.The Median follow-up duration was 3.85 years. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of all-cause hospitalizations and all-cause mortality. Results: BNP levels were 530 and 515 pg/mL in the study and the control groups, respectively. Moderate AS had significantly higher rates of primary composite endpoint in both univariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14–1.97; p=0.004) and adjusted analysis (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.05–2.01; p=0.02). Moderate AS had 1.41 (95% CI, 1.18– 1.69; p<0.001) times more all-cause hospitalization per patient-year of follow-up compared to controls in the univariate model. After adjustment for significant covariates, moderate AS remained an independent predictor of all-cause hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18–1.79; p=0.005). Furthermore, moderate AS was significantly associated with higher all-cause hospitalization rates in both heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (IRR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02–1.75; p=0.038) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [IRR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.03–1.67; p=0.026). Conclusions Moderate AS in conjunction with elevated BNP portends a significantly worse prognosis than those without moderate AS and should be followed closely.

Background: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has prohibited epidural steroid injection (ESI) with particulate steroids. Thus, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESI with two nonparticulate steroids, dexamethasone and betamethasone. Methods: The eligible patients (n = 600) who received ESI (0 week) with dexamethasone (ESI-dexa) or betamethasone (ESI-beta) had follow-up visits at 2, 4, and 8 weeks with a phone interview at 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of effective responders without pain or who were much improved at 2 weeks. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of crossover injections at 2 weeks; changes in the visual analog scale (VAS) and disability index scores at 2, 4, and 8 weeks; the number of additional ESIs in 12 weeks; the number of participants having spinal surgery, as well as the incidence of adverse events over the 12 weeks. Results: The proportion of effective responders at 2 weeks was not different between ESI-beta (72/216, 33.3%) and ESI-dexa (63/200, 31.5%; P = 0.670). Adverse events were more common with ESI-dexa (40/200, 20.0%) than with ESI-beta (24/216, 11.1%; P = 0.012). VAS scores decreased more with ESI-beta than with ESI-dexa at 2 weeks (difference, 0.35; P = 0.023) and 4 weeks (difference, 0.42; P = 0.011). The disability score improved significantly more with ESI-beta compared with ESI-dexa at 2 weeks (difference, 3.37; P = 0.009), 4 weeks (difference, 4.01; P = 0.002), and 8 weeks (difference, 3.54; P = 0.007). Conclusions Betamethasone would be more appropriate for ESI.