-
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Jul 2024Consensus statements recommend the use of norepinephrine and/or vasopressin for hypotension in cardiac surgery. However, there is a paucity of data among other surgical... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Consensus statements recommend the use of norepinephrine and/or vasopressin for hypotension in cardiac surgery. However, there is a paucity of data among other surgical subgroups and vasopressin analogs. Therefore, the authors conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare vasopressin-receptor agonists with norepinephrine for hypotension among those undergoing surgery with general anesthesia. This review was registered prospectively (CRD42022316328). Literature searches were conducted by a medical librarian to November 28, 2023, across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science. The authors included RCTs enrolling adults (≥18 years of age) undergoing any surgery under general anesthesia who developed perioperative hypotension and comparing vasopressin receptor agonists with norepinephrine. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Thirteen (N = 719) RCTs were included, of which 8 (n = 585) enrolled patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Five trials compared norepinephrine with vasopressin, 4 trials with terlipressin, 1 trial with ornipressin, and the other 3 trials used vasopressin as adjuvant therapy. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality. Among patients with vasoplegic shock after cardiac surgery, vasopressin was associated with significantly lower intensive care unit (N = 385; 2 trials; mean 100.8 v 175.2 hours, p < 0.005; median 120 [IQR 96-168] v 144 [96-216] hours, p = 0.007) and hospital lengths of stay, as well as fewer cases of acute kidney injury and atrial fibrillation compared with norepinephrine. One trial also found that terlipressin was associated with a significantly lower incidence of acute kidney injury versus norepinephrine overall. Vasopressin and norepinephrine restored mean arterial blood pressure with no significant differences; however, the use of vasopressin with norepinephrine was associated with significantly higher mean arterial blood pressure versus norepinephrine alone. Further high-quality trials are needed to determine pooled treatment effects, especially among noncardiac surgical patients and those treated with vasopressin analogs.
Topics: Humans; Norepinephrine; Hypotension; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins; Receptors, Vasopressin; Adult; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38580478
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2024.03.014 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Aug 2023The utilization of vasopressin receptor antagonists, known as vaptans, in the management of hyponatremia among patients afflicted with the syndrome of inappropriate... (Review)
Review
Safety and Efficacy of Vaptans in the Treatment of Hyponatremia from Syndrome of Inappropriate Antidiuretic Hormone Secretion (SIADH): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The utilization of vasopressin receptor antagonists, known as vaptans, in the management of hyponatremia among patients afflicted with the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) remains a contentious subject. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaptans for treating chronic hyponatremia in adult SIADH patients. Clinical trials and observational studies were identified by a systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database from inception through September 2022. The inclusion criteria were the studies that reported vaptans' safety or efficacy outcomes compared to placebo or standard therapies. The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD 42022357307). Five studies were identified, comprising three RCTs and two cohort studies, enrolling a total of 1840 participants. Regarding short-term efficacy on days 4-5, vaptans exhibited a significant increase in serum sodium concentration from the baseline in comparison to the control group, with a weighted mean difference of 4.77 mmol/L (95% CI, 3.57, 5.96; I = 34%). In terms of safety outcomes, the pooled incidence rates of overcorrection were 13.1% (95% CI 4.3, 33.6; I = 92%) in the vaptans group and 3.3% (95% CI 1.6, 6.6; I = 27%) in the control group. Despite the higher correction rate linked to vaptans, with an OR of 5.72 (95% CI 3.38, 9.70; I = 0%), no cases of osmotic demyelination syndrome were observed. Our meta-analysis comprehensively summarizes the efficacy and effect size of vaptans in managing SIADH. While vaptans effectively raise the serum sodium concentration compared to placebo/fluid restriction, clinicians should exercise caution regarding the potential for overcorrection.
PubMed: 37685548
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12175483 -
Journal of Personalized Medicine Jul 2023The clinical impact of vasopressin in hemorrhagic shock remains largely unknown.
BACKGROUND
The clinical impact of vasopressin in hemorrhagic shock remains largely unknown.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to investigate the effects of vasopressin receptor agonists during the resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and PubMed Central was conducted for relevant articles. Experimental (animal) and clinical studies were included. The primary objective was to investigate the correlation of vasopressin receptor agonist use with mortality and various hemodynamic parameters.
RESULTS
Data extraction was possible in thirteen animal studies and two clinical studies. Differences in risk of mortality between patients who received a vasopressin receptor agonist were not statistically significant when compared to those who were not treated with such agents [RR (95% CI): 1.17 (0.67, 2.08); = 0.562; I = 50%]. The available data were insufficient to conduct a meta-analysis assessing the effect of vasopressin receptor agonists on hemodynamics. Drawing safe conclusions from animal studies was challenging, due to significant heterogeneity in terms of species and dosage of vasopressin receptor agonists among studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Differences in risk of mortality between patients who received a vasopressin receptor agonist were not statistically significant when compared to those who were not treated with such agents after hemorrhagic shock. More data are needed to deduce certain conclusions.
PubMed: 37511756
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071143 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2022The aim of this study was to systematically review the use of vaptans (nonpeptide vasopressin receptor antagonists) in children.
AIMS
The aim of this study was to systematically review the use of vaptans (nonpeptide vasopressin receptor antagonists) in children.
METHODS
Through a database search (Web of Science, the National Library of Medicine, Excerpta Medica), we identified case series and case reports and extracted clinical and laboratory data.
RESULTS
Twenty-six articles, published since 2008, reported on 226 patients. Among 115 children with hyponatraemic (n = 63) and oedematous disorders (n = 52), a 48 hour course of tolvaptan with an initial dose of 0.38 ± 0.27 mg/kg was administered in 106 cases, while intravenous conivaptan was reported in nine cases. An increase (P < .02) in urine output was shown in both oedematous (from 3.2 ± 2.0 to 5.3 ± 6.7 mL/kg/day) and hyponatraemic (from 3.0 ± 1.5 to 4.4 ± 2.3 mL/kg/day) patients. In these latter, sodium increased from 125 ± 6 to 133 ± 6 mmol/L (P < .0001). The increase in sodium level correlated with its basal value, but not with the administered vaptan dose. Among 111 children undergoing cardiac surgery, after tolvaptan 0.21 ± 0.01 mg/kg/day, mostly combined with conventional diuretics, an increase in diuresis by 41 ± 4% was seen within 24 hours (P < .0001). Similarly, a single add-on dose of tolvaptan 0.45 mg/kg allowed a reduced additional intravenous furosemide administration (0.26 ± 0.23 vs 0.62 ± 0.48 mg/kg, P < .005). Side effects were rarely reported, and included excessive thirst and xerostomia in seven, skin rash in one and elevated aminotransferases in one patient(s).
CONCLUSION
Vaptans appear to be safe for oedematous and hyponatraemic disorders also in children. Although they increase diuresis and natraemia, no superiority to traditional diuretics and sodium supplements has been demonstrated. Reported side effects are rare and non-serious.
Topics: Antidiuretic Hormone Receptor Antagonists; Benzazepines; Child; Diuretics; Heart Failure; Humans; Hyponatremia; Sodium; Tolvaptan
PubMed: 35474586
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15367 -
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and... 2021Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a potentially fatal complication of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). Binding of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2...
BACKGROUND
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a potentially fatal complication of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). Binding of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for COVID-19, to its viral receptor, angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), results in viral entry and may cause AKI.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the frequencies of AKI and renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill COVID-19 patients and compared those frequencies with patients who were infected by respiratory viruses that bind or downregulate ACE2 (ACE2-associated viruses) and viruses that do not bind nor downregulate ACE2 (non-ACE2-associated viruses).
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Observational studies on COVID-19 and other respiratory viral infections reporting AKI and RRT were included. The exclusion criteria were non-English articles, non-peer-reviewed articles, review articles, studies that included patients under the age of 18, studies including fewer than 10 patients, and studies not reporting AKI and RRT rates.
PATIENTS
Adult COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and influenza patients.
MEASUREMENTS
We extracted the following data from the included studies: author, year, study location, age, sex, race, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, shock, vasopressor use, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU mortality, AKI, and RRT.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles reporting AKI or RRT. AKI was defined by authors of included studies. Critical illness was defined by ICU admission. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled estimates for the AKI and RRT rate within each virus group using a random intercept logistic regression model.
RESULTS
Of 23 655 hospitalized, critically ill COVID-19 patients, AKI frequencies were not significantly different between COVID-19 patients (51%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 44%-57%) and critically ill patients infected with ACE2-associated (56%, 95% CI: 37%-74%, = .610) or non-ACE2-associated viruses (63%, 95% CI: 43%-79%, = .255). Pooled RRT rates were also not significantly different between critically ill, hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (20%, 95% CI: 16%-24%) and ACE2-associated viruses (18%, 95% CI: 8%-33%, = .747). RRT rates for both COVID-19 and ACE2-associated viruses were significantly different ( < .001 for both) from non-ACE2-associated viruses (49%, 95% CI: 44%-54%). After adjusting for shock or vasopressor use, AKI and RRT rates were not significantly different between groups.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of this study include the heterogeneity of definitions of AKI that were used across different virus studies. We could not match severity of infection or do propensity matching across studies. Most of the included studies were conducted in retrospective fashion. Last, we did not include non-English publications.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that viral ACE2 association does not significantly alter the rates of AKI and RRT among critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. However, the rate of RRT is lower in patients with COVID-19 or ACE2-associated viruses when compared with patients infected with non-ACE2-binding viruses, which might partly be due to the lower frequencies of shock and use of vasopressors in these two virus groups. Prospective studies are necessary to demonstrate whether modulation of the ACE2 axis with Renin-Angiotensin System inhibitors impacts the rates of AKI and whether they are beneficial or harmful in COVID-19 patients.
PubMed: 34733538
DOI: 10.1177/20543581211052185 -
Journal of Cardiac Surgery Oct 2021Vasoplegic syndrome (VPS) is defined as systemic hypotension due to profound vasodilatation and loss of systemic vascular resistance (SVR), despite normal or increased...
BACKGROUND
Vasoplegic syndrome (VPS) is defined as systemic hypotension due to profound vasodilatation and loss of systemic vascular resistance (SVR), despite normal or increased cardiac index, and characterized by inadequate response to standard doses of vasopressors, and increased morbidity and mortality. It occurs in 9%-44% of cardiac surgery patients after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The underlying pathophysiology following CPB consists of resistance to vasopressors (inactivation of Ca voltage gated channels) on the one hand and excessive activation of vasodilators (SIRS, iNOS, and low AVP) on the other. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I), calcium channel blockers, amiodarone, heparin, low cardiac reserve (EF < 35%), symptomatic congestive heart failure, and diabetes mellitus are the perioperative risk factors for VPS after cardiac surgery in adults. Till date, there is no consensus about the outcome-oriented therapeutic management of VPS. Vasopressors such as norepinephrine (NE; 0.025-0.2 µg/kg/min) and vasopressin (0.06 U/min or 6 U/h median dose) are the first choice for the treatment. The adjuvant therapy (hydrocortisone, calcium, vitamin C, and thiamine) and rescue therapy (methylene blue [MB] and hydroxocobalamin) are also considered when perfusion goals (meanarterial pressure [MAP] > 60-70 mmHg) are not achieved with nor-epinephrine and/or vasopressin.
AIMS
The aims of this systematic review are to collect all the clinically relevant data to describe the VPS, its potential risk factors, pathophysiology after CPB, and to assess the efficacy, safety, and outcome of the therapeutic management with catecholamine and non-catecholamine vasopressors employed for refractory vasoplegia after cardiac surgery. Also, to elucidate the current and practical approach for management of VPS after cardiac surgery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
"PubMed," "Google," and "Medline" weresearched, and over 150 recent relevant articles including RCTs, clinical studies, meta-analysis, reviews, case reports, case series and Cochrane data were analyzed for this systematic review. The filter was applied specificallyusing key words like VPS after cardiac surgery, perioperative VPS following CPB, morbidity, and mortality in VPS after cardiac surgery, vasopressors for VPS that improve outcomes, VPS after valve surgery, VPS after CABG surgery, VPS following complex congenital cardiac anomalies corrective surgery, rescue therapy for VPS, adjuvant therapy for VPS, definition of VPS, outcome in VPS after cardiac surgery, etiopathology of VPS following CPB. This review did not require any ethical approval or consent from the patients.
RESULTS
Despite the recent advances in therapy, the mortality remains as high as 30%-50%. NE has been recommended the most frequent used vasopressor for VPS. It restores and maintain the MAP and provides the outcome benefits. Vasopressin rescue therapy is an alternative approach, if catecholamines and fluid infusions fail to improve hemodynamics. It effectively increases vascular tone and lowers CO, and significantly decreases the 30 days mortality. Hence, suggested a first-line vasopressor agent in postcardiac surgery VPS. Terlipressin (1.3μg/kg/h), a longer acting and more specific vasoconstrictor prevents the development of VPS after CPB in patients treated with ACE-I. MB significantly reduces morbidity and mortality of VPS. The Preoperative MB (1%, 2mg/kg/30min, 1h before surgery) administration in high risk (on ACE-I) patients for VPS undergoing CABG surgery, provides 100% protection against VPS, and early of MB significantly reduces operative mortality, and recommended as a rescue therapy for VPS. Hydroxocobalamin (5 g) has been recommended as a rescue agent in VPS refractory to multiple vasopressors. A combination of ascorbic acid (6 g), hydrocortisone (200 mg/day), and thiamine (400 mg/day) as an adjuvant therapy significantly reduces the vasopressors requirement, and provides mortality and morbidity benefits.
CONCLUSION
Currently, the VPS is frequently encountered (9%-40%) in cardiac surgical patients with predisposing patient-specific risk factors and combined with inflammatory response to CPB. Multidrug therapy (NE, MB, AVP, ATII, terlipressin, hydroxocobalamin) targeting multiple receptor systems is recommended in refractory VPS. A combination of high dosage of ascorbic acid, hydrocortisone and thiamine has been used successfully as adjunctive therapyto restore the MAP. We also advocate for the early use of multiagent vasopressors therapy and catecholamine sparing adjunctive agents to restore the systemic perfusion pressure with a goal of preventing the progressive refractory VPS.
Topics: Adult; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hydroxocobalamin; Leprostatic Agents; Vasoplegia
PubMed: 34251716
DOI: 10.1111/jocs.15805 -
Critical Care Medicine Sep 2021Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 binds and inhibits angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. The frequency of acute cardiac injury in patients with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 binds and inhibits angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. The frequency of acute cardiac injury in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is unknown. The objective was to compare the rates of cardiac injury by angiotensin-converting enzyme-2-binding viruses from viruses that do not bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2.
DATA SOURCES
We performed a systematic review of coronavirus disease 2019 literature on PubMed and EMBASE.
STUDY SELECTION
We included studies with ten or more hospitalized adults with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 or other viral pathogens that described the occurrence of acute cardiac injury. This was defined by the original publication authors or by: 1) myocardial ischemia, 2) new cardiac arrhythmia on echocardiogram, or 3) new or worsening heart failure on echocardiogram.
DATA EXTRACTION
We compared the rates of cardiac injury among patients with respiratory infections with viruses that down-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, including H1N1, H5N1, H7N9, and severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-1, to those with respiratory infections from other influenza viruses that do not bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, including Influenza H3N2 and influenza B.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Of 57 studies including 34,072 patients, acute cardiac injury occurred in 50% (95% CI, 44-57%) of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The overall risk of acute cardiac injury was 21% (95% CI, 18-26%) among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. In comparison, 37% (95% CI, 26-49%) of critically ill patients with other respiratory viruses that bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (p = 0.061) and 12% (95% CI, 7-22%) of critically ill patients with other respiratory viruses that do not bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (p < 0.001) experienced a cardiac injury.
CONCLUSIONS
Acute cardiac injury may be associated with whether the virus binds angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. Acute cardiac injury occurs in half of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients, but only 12% of patients infected by viruses that do not bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2.
Topics: Acute Disease; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; COVID-19; Down-Regulation; Heart Failure; Humans; Influenza A virus; Influenza B virus; Influenza, Human; Myocardial Ischemia; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33870918
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005026 -
Clinical Psychology Review Jun 2021Despite evidence supporting a role for oxytocin (OT) in regulating social behavior, surprisingly little is known about how this neuropeptide is calibrated during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Despite evidence supporting a role for oxytocin (OT) in regulating social behavior, surprisingly little is known about how this neuropeptide is calibrated during development. We systematically reviewed empirical studies in humans (k = 86 publications reporting on 66 independent samples; N = 7319) that examined associations between early-life stress and three OT system components: endogenous OT, methylation of the OT receptor gene (OXTRm), and biological and behavioral responses to intranasally administered OT. In a series of meta-analyses, we found some evidence that people who grew up under more adverse conditions tend to have lower endogenous OT (children: r = .12; adults: r = .09), that early adversity is associated with higher levels of OXTRm (r = .02), and that adults who report lower levels of childhood adversity tend to show more positive responses to intranasally administered OT (r = .12). These results were found in typical populations, and were in most cases absent in clinical samples. We discuss these findings in terms of both the prevailing medical model (focusing on the harmful effects of early-life stress) and the adaptive calibration model (focusing on developmental adaptation of biobehavioral systems to early conditions) and suggest that an adaptation-based approach could meaningfully advance research and intervention on the sequelae of early adversity.
Topics: Adult; Adverse Childhood Experiences; Child; Humans; Oxytocin; Receptors, Oxytocin; Social Behavior
PubMed: 33770582
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101985 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020Vasopressin is an efficient remedy for septic shock patients as its great capacity in promoting hemodynamic stabilization. The aim of current systematic review and...
BACKGROUND
Vasopressin is an efficient remedy for septic shock patients as its great capacity in promoting hemodynamic stabilization. The aim of current systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical efficiency of vasopressin or its analogs with sole catecholamines on patients with septic shock.
METHODS
A systematic search of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed online databases was performed up to 30 Oct 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing use of vasopressin or its analogs (e.g., terlipressin, selepressin) with administration of catecholamines alone.
RESULTS
We included 23 RCTs with 4,225 patients in the current study. Compared with solely use of catecholamines, administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock [RR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.01), =0.08, I = 0%]. The result of primary endpoint remained unchanged after conducting sensitivity analysis. Despite a significantly higher risk of digital ischemia in patients receiving vasopressin or its analogs [RR=2.65 (95% CI, 1.26-5.56), < 0.01, I = 48%], there was no statistical significance in the pooled estimate for other secondary outcomes, including total adverse events, arrhythmia, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiac arrest, acute mesenteric ischemia, ICU/hospital length of stay, and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration.
CONCLUSIONS
The administration of vasopressin or its analogs was not associated with reduced 28-day or 30-day mortality among patients with septic shock, while an increased incidence of digital ischemia should be noted in patients receiving agonists for vasopressin receptors.
PubMed: 32435192
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00563 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.
OBJECTIVES
This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Antidiuretic Hormone Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Humans; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 32103487
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012466.pub2