Loop diuretic therapy in left ventricular systolic dysfunction: has familiarity bred contempt for a critical but potentially nephrotoxic cardio renal therapy?

Long highlighted as the ‘odd man out’ in modern heart failure care, loop diuretic therapy has no cardiovascular outcomes studies for its use in any clinical setting. Although ostracized by some for this evidence gap, diuretic treatment remains beloved for good reason. It is often one of the first to be employed with great effect by the newly qualified physician, salvaging the critical patient from death due to hypoxic acute pulmonary oedema with rapid and gratifying effectiveness. However, has this widely recognized efficacy in this setting masked a potential for iatrogenic renal injury in less abrupt but no less fatal cardio renal decline? The use of aggressive diuretic therapy in heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) is well known to be associated not only with obvious benefit in acute pulmonary oedema, but it also has a linkage to progressive renal dysfunction and death in chronic LVSD. The practical problem is based on difficulties in the recognition of volume loading of the heart and of renal venous pressure following the relative demise of regular monitoring of invasive pulmonary pressure. Invasive monitoring has been deemed inappropriate by many critical care authorities and is itself, associated with morbidity and mortality concerns. As with every clinical study, the setting is the key to interpretation of therapeutic effects. Cardiorenal failure, marked by hyponatraemia; disordered electrolyte clearance; acidosis and diuretic resistance, is a prominent feature of terminal decline and death in patients with heart failure due to LVSD. Unlike other more dramatic events such as arrhythmic sudden death, this phenomenon has been relatively ignored in the medical literature. Loop diuretic therapy is at the heart of the management of this critical setting and may play a role in the cycle of decline given its independent but unclear linkage to cardiac death.

[1]  B. Keevil,et al.  The effects of adding torasemide to standard therapy on peak oxygen consumption, natriuretic peptides, and quality of life in patients with compensated left ventricular systolic dysfunction , 2010, European journal of heart failure.

[2]  T. Greene,et al.  Adjusting for clinical covariates improves the ability of B‐type natriuretic peptide to distinguish cardiac from non‐cardiac dyspnoea: a sub‐study of HEARD‐IT , 2009, European journal of heart failure.

[3]  G. Navis,et al.  Increased central venous pressure is associated with impaired renal function and mortality in a broad spectrum of patients with cardiovascular disease. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  D. J. Veldhuisen,et al.  Urinary neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin (NGAL), a marker of tubular damage, is increased in patients with chronic heart failure , 2008, European journal of heart failure.

[5]  D. Atar,et al.  ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 ‡ , 2008, European journal of heart failure.

[6]  D. J. Veldhuisen,et al.  Can monitoring of intrathoracic impedance reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure? Rationale and design of the Diagnostic Outcome Trial in Heart Failure (DOT‐HF) ☆ , 2008, European journal of heart failure.

[7]  G. Lip,et al.  Repeated assessment of physical biomeasures or blood biomarkers for the definition of volume status and cardiac loading in LVSD. , 2007, Biomarkers in medicine.

[8]  Milton Packer,et al.  Utility of impedance cardiography for the identification of short-term risk of clinical decompensation in stable patients with chronic heart failure. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Renal impairment and outcomes in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  R. Schrier Role of diminished renal function in cardiovascular mortality: marker or pathogenetic factor? , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  Karen A. Hartman,et al.  Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness , 2005 .

[12]  V. Hasselblad,et al.  Intensity and focus of heart failure disease management after hospital discharge. , 2005, American heart journal.

[13]  L. Neyses,et al.  Diuretic usage in heart failure: a continuing conundrum in 2005. , 2005, European heart journal.

[14]  D. Mancini,et al.  Relation of unrecognized hypervolemia in chronic heart failure to clinical status, hemodynamics, and patient outcomes. , 2004, The American journal of cardiology.

[15]  A. Struthers,et al.  Furosemide responsiveness, non-adherence and resistance during the chronic treatment of heart failure: a longitudinal study. , 2004, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[16]  L. Stevenson,et al.  The limited reliability of physical signs for estimating hemodynamics in chronic heart failure. , 1989, JAMA.

[17]  V. Hasselblad,et al.  Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial. , 2005, JAMA.

[18]  C. H. Lockwood Diuretic therapy. , 1961, Medical services journal, Canada.