Cardiorenal syndrome

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

surge55

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
226
Reaction score
1
what's everyone's thought's on this disease? I'm sure people encounter it on a daily basis. I'm thinking of presenting it for grand rounds as a topic.

it was either that, or hyponatremia. I had a patient that came in hypovolemic hyponatremia, got better with fluids, then got pneumonia and went hyponatremic again; I ordered a urine na first instead of just giving her fluids, and it turned out she had SIADH from the pneumonia. it'd be good to review this topic for those who would just give her more fluid...

thoughts?

Members don't see this ad.
 
what's everyone's thought's on this disease? I'm sure people encounter it on a daily basis. I'm thinking of presenting it for grand rounds as a topic.

it was either that, or hyponatremia. I had a patient that came in hypovolemic hyponatremia, got better with fluids, then got pneumonia and went hyponatremic again; I ordered a urine na first instead of just giving her fluids, and it turned out she had SIADH from the pneumonia. it'd be good to review this topic for those who would just give her more fluid...

thoughts?

Sounds good. It's always good to underline that in IM, it's NEVER just one thing.

The days where some healthy dude shows up with simple PNA are gone. Single organ problems are the exception not the rule. Everyone's a train wreck and it's all connected.

Though getting back to cardio-renal, the problem with cardio-renal is that there's really no great decision tree, except . . . try fluids or try diuresis based on your best clinical gestalt about the patient and their cardio-renal syndrome presentation (assuming of course we're not talking cardio-renal from acute decompensated HF which would require a "little" more interesting treatment), though sometimes with these guys, you literally need to flip a coin, pick one, and check the Cr in the AM.
 
Sounds good. It's always good to underline that in IM, it's NEVER just one thing.

The days where some healthy dude shows up with simple PNA are gone. Single organ problems are the exception not the rule. Everyone's a train wreck and it's all connected.

Though getting back to cardio-renal, the problem with cardio-renal is that there's really no great decision tree, except . . . try fluids or try diuresis based on your best clinical gestalt about the patient and their cardio-renal syndrome presentation (assuming of course we're not talking cardio-renal from acute decompensated HF which would require a "little" more interesting treatment), though sometimes with these guys, you literally need to flip a coin, pick one, and check the Cr in the AM.

There's always my personal favorite trick in these guys, the boluresis.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The surgeons do it all the time. I think they may be onto something here . . .

We would routinely do it in our CHFers who got into trouble with overdiuresis or came in septic with crappy beans. Usually works pretty well but you have to watch it closely because it's easy to go the wrong direction and not be able to get back (without plugging in Mr. Kidney).
 
We would routinely do it in our CHFers who got into trouble with overdiuresis or came in septic with crappy beans. Usually works pretty well but you have to watch it closely because it's easy to go the wrong direction and not be able to get back (without plugging in Mr. Kidney).

That's kind of anathema to any of the training I've had - which was you do one or the other, not both. Though, there may be some rationale to try both at the same time, though I have to admit I've personally never been too sympathetic to that line of thinking.

But I'm just a big dumb critical care animal - I dump fluids in you until your pulse ox goes down, then I'll start the lasix ;)
 
I know the mantra that I learned from the nephrologists with respect to IVF or diuresis was you do either one or the other, except outside of a few select instances, i.e. hypercalcemia, possibly rhabdo. Another cool trick I leared from them was checking urine sodium as a surrogate for renal perfusion if intravascular volume status is in question.
 
I know the mantra that I learned from the nephrologists with respect to IVF or diuresis was you do either one or the other, except outside of a few select instances, i.e. hypercalcemia, possibly rhabdo. Another cool trick I leared from them was checking urine sodium as a surrogate for renal perfusion if intravascular volume status is in question.

That old fena... Such a torture as a medical student!! :)
 
The gist from this editorial is that only meds that attack the RAAS system (pick your favorite) will affect the neurohumoral disturbance that is cardiorenal. It's not as clear as in hepatorenal where you either drain the ascites or give them octreotide-midrodine.

In terms of lasix, I have not seen it in the EBM literature affect mortality in a meaningful way, just hospitalization/morbidity. Which is nothing to scoff at, but that's an important limitation of just tinkering with volume.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/110/12/1514.short
 
Last edited:
The gist from this editorial is that only meds that attack the RAAS system (pick your favorite) will affect the neurohumoral disturbance that is cardiorenal. It's not as clear as in hepatorenal where you either drain the ascites or give them octreotide-midrodine.

In terms of lasix, I have not seen it in the EBM literature affect mortality in a meaningful way, just hospitalization/morbidity. Which is nothing to scoff at, but that's an important limitation of just tinkering with volume.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/110/12/1514.short


http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijn/2011/194910/

this article is fantastic as well, but ty for yours too :D

I am excited to present this topic. it seems it will have a lot of talking points. I just hope I can finish in 45 minutes.
 
so to those who mentioend 'boluresis' - so far I see no medical evidence other than your anecdotal stuff. I'm glad it worked, but did you guys try anything else? if you can recall what your patients were on I'd appreciate it.

for example, were they tried on ace inhibitors? nesiritide? were they in the ICU? on dopamine drips or other pressors?
 
so to those who mentioend 'boluresis' - so far I see no medical evidence other than your anecdotal stuff. I'm glad it worked, but did you guys try anything else? if you can recall what your patients were on I'd appreciate it.

for example, were they tried on ace inhibitors? nesiritide? were they in the ICU? on dopamine drips or other pressors?

No, there's no data to support it. And it was generally an attempt at temporizing or keeping them out of the unit. It works surprisingly well (500ml bolus with a moderate lasix slug shortly afterward) but is counterintuitive to say the least.
 
so to those who mentioend 'boluresis' - so far I see no medical evidence other than your anecdotal stuff. I'm glad it worked, but did you guys try anything else? if you can recall what your patients were on I'd appreciate it.

for example, were they tried on ace inhibitors? nesiritide? were they in the ICU? on dopamine drips or other pressors?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I learned while in the ICU that dopamine is essentially useless as a pressor (if anything it's used as a dobutamine adjunct); I've never seen an attending who likes it. Or is this a personal thing?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Cardiorenal is interesting and definitely worth a talk. No to boluerisis et al. The cardiorenal syndrome is part of a constellation of pathophysiologic mechanisms that includes neurohormonal activation, inflammation, etc but elevated central venous pressure and hence renal venous pressure plays a central role. (See Fig.1 http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=1224877). Despite what everyone tells you it is not poor perfusion due to "poor forward flow" or "falling off the Starling curve." It's poor perfusion across the kidney because but you've lost the typically high gradient from the arterial pressure and low venous pressure when someone comes in with very high central venous pressure and potential arterial underfilling in the setting of elevated SVR/neurormonal stress, etc.. If you don't buy that see Figure 1 here and teach it to each other.
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1139427. If the patient truly has symptoms related to elevated filling pressures and is not preload dependent (severe pulm HTN, massive PE, tamponade) diuresis alone is the answer or, even better, ultrafiltration which for reasons unrelated to its superiority has not caught on in most hospitals. http://circheartfailure.ahajournals.org/content/2/5/499.extract

Yes, some people have massive necks and difficult physical exams but if it smells like heart failure and they have worsened renal failure there is no fault in attempting diuresis. If they have 10 days of massive diarrhea and skin tenting with a history of cardiomyopathy, yes, they can be dehydrated and fluid is the answer. Use your judgement and G-dspeed to you.

Hint: If you can't tell volume from their JVP easily and they get an echo look at their IVC or better yet look yourself if you have a hand-carried device. You can tell the CVP from that. In broad strokes >2.5 cm IVC diameter is consistent with elevated CVP and <1.5 cm is likely pretty low CVP. If it's between but collapsing at least 50% with inspiration the CVP is pretty normal. They could still have elevated left-sided filling pressures but probably not massively in the subacute phase that leads to heart failure inpatient stays. Acute MI is another story. Go to the echo lab and ask about the IVC. It's one of the last images they acquire but it doesn't often get reported even when they acquire the image.
 
Cardiorenal is interesting and definitely worth a talk. No to boluerisis et al. The cardiorenal syndrome is part of a constellation of pathophysiologic mechanisms that includes neurohormonal activation, inflammation, etc but elevated central venous pressure and hence renal venous pressure plays a central role. (See Fig.1 http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=1224877). Despite what everyone tells you it is not poor perfusion due to "poor forward flow" or "falling off the Starling curve." It's poor perfusion across the kidney because but you've lost the typically high gradient from the arterial pressure and low venous pressure when someone comes in with very high central venous pressure and potential arterial underfilling in the setting of elevated SVR/neurormonal stress, etc.. If you don't buy that see Figure 1 here and teach it to each other.
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1139427. If the patient truly has symptoms related to elevated filling pressures and is not preload dependent (severe pulm HTN, massive PE, tamponade) diuresis alone is the answer or, even better, ultrafiltration which for reasons unrelated to its superiority has not caught on in most hospitals. http://circheartfailure.ahajournals.org/content/2/5/499.extract

Yes, some people have massive necks and difficult physical exams but if it smells like heart failure and they have worsened renal failure there is no fault in attempting diuresis. If they have 10 days of massive diarrhea and skin tenting with a history of cardiomyopathy, yes, they can be dehydrated and fluid is the answer. Use your judgement and G-dspeed to you.

Hint: If you can't tell volume from their JVP easily and they get an echo look at their IVC or better yet look yourself if you have a hand-carried device. You can tell the CVP from that. In broad strokes >2.5 cm IVC diameter is consistent with elevated CVP and <1.5 cm is likely pretty low CVP. If it's between but collapsing at least 50% with inspiration the CVP is pretty normal. They could still have elevated left-sided filling pressures but probably not massively in the subacute phase that leads to heart failure inpatient stays. Acute MI is another story. Go to the echo lab and ask about the IVC. It's one of the last images they acquire but it doesn't often get reported even when they acquire the image.

Hate to break it to you but "poor forward flow" is also going to decrease or worsen the gradient across the kidneys. It's still important to get an estimate of where you think you are on the F/S curve with your treatment.

CVP is largely bull**** and means nothing. It's a number that varies wildly in many different clinic states and is completely inconsistent among any group of patients.

http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/article.aspx?articleid=1085950
http://jvsmedicscorner.com/Anaesth-Management_files/CVP and PCWP fail to predict filling volume.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x07t175374261w31/

I could go on, but you guys should know how to look up articles
 
Once they get to cardiorenal, it is best not to mess with your mind and screw with the physiology.

It is best to call hospice to come see the patient........only exception is if they are going to get an LVAD.

No LVAD = hospice.

There is a reason it is called END STAGE heart failure.

Sometimes in medicine you just have to call it a day and move on. Especially in the United States, doctors just try too much when there is truly no hope and continuing on with your valiant effort can actually cause the patient more harm and prolonged suffering than good. It is best in these situations to make the patient as comfortable as possible.
 
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you but "poor forward flow" is also going to decrease or worsen the gradient across the kidneys. It's still important to get an estimate of where you think you are on the F/S curve with your treatment.

CVP is largely bull**** and means nothing. It's a number that varies wildly in many different clinic states and is completely inconsistent among any group of patients.

http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/article.aspx?articleid=1085950
http://jvsmedicscorner.com/Anaesth-Management_files/CVP and PCWP fail to predict filling volume.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x07t175374261w31/

I could go on, but you guys should know how to look up articles

If those citations were in heart failure patients like we're discussing it might be "breaking it to me" but any dogma that CVP is b.s. is simply untrue though, as is typically the case, it depends. Of course you can have normal CVP and high PCWP (isolated L heart failure) or high CVP and low PCWP (pulm HTN from whatever etiology). CVP is only one variable and like anything, needs some clinical acumen to synthesize how important it is in your decision-making. Obviously the dyspneic patient with a large PE and high CVP means something much different than someone with systolic dysfunction, signs and symptoms of left and right heart failure. The fact remains that venous congestion increases the risk of worsening renal failure in patients with heart failure. Arterial underfilling (from low output leading to high SVR) contributes in end-stage CM but even in those with normal cardiac index and normal blood pressure the relationship of CVP and worsening renal failure in patients with heart failure persists. I'm not denying FS curves are great in the lab but it's not the major player in these patients. The OP was talking about cardiorenal syndrome. To the OP: Yes, it's a good topic for a conference. You'll at the very least get good discussion.These figures are in humans (ref from my previous post) but it's not news and this was shown in animal models earlier.
m_05068_gr1.jpeg



Cardiac index as a predictor of worsening renal failure in this population was not far off from a coin flip for accuracy.

m_05068_gr2.jpeg


The post about hospice is not bad. When patients with heart failure start having repeated admissions despite optimal therapy (at least adhering to it) the prognosis is awful.
 
Nice to see you agree with me. CVP is all over the place is low when it should be high and high when it should be low. If you're trying to make an argument for venous congestion but can't even trust the measurement and you've got other clinical means to determine the patients venous status including physical exam, then I'd call that variable compete garbage. You must be a budding cardiologist.

If those citations were in heart failure patients like we're discussing it might be "breaking it to me" but any dogma that CVP is b.s. is simply untrue though, as is typically the case, it depends. Of course you can have normal CVP and high PCWP (isolated L heart failure) or high CVP and low PCWP (pulm HTN from whatever etiology). CVP is only one variable and like anything, needs some clinical acumen to synthesize how important it is in your decision-making. Obviously the dyspneic patient with a large PE and high CVP means something much different than someone with systolic dysfunction, signs and symptoms of left and right heart failure. The fact remains that venous congestion increases the risk of worsening renal failure in patients with heart failure. Arterial underfilling (from low output leading to high SVR) contributes in end-stage CM but even in those with normal cardiac index and normal blood pressure the relationship of CVP and worsening renal failure in patients with heart failure persists. I'm not denying FS curves are great in the lab but it's not the major player in these patients. The OP was talking about cardiorenal syndrome. To the OP: Yes, it's a good topic for a conference. You'll at the very least get good discussion.These figures are in humans (ref from my previous post) but it's not news and this was shown in animal models earlier.
m_05068_gr1.jpeg



Cardiac index as a predictor of worsening renal failure in this population was not far off from a coin flip for accuracy.

m_05068_gr2.jpeg


The post about hospice is not bad. When patients with heart failure start having repeated admissions despite optimal therapy (at least adhering to it) the prognosis is awful.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I learned while in the ICU that dopamine is essentially useless as a pressor (if anything it's used as a dobutamine adjunct); I've never seen an attending who likes it. Or is this a personal thing?

No evidence that dopa at renal doses improves outcomes. There is evidence that it worsens outcomes as a primary pressor (SOAP trial)
 
SOAP was just higher arrhythmias which isn't really an outcome.

exactly

Meta-analysis in CCM Mar 2012 showed worse survival...so i think the nail is in the coffin by now.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22036860

Not so fast. That meta-analysis was basically predominantly made up of patients from the SOAP. Look at the numbers.

The bottom line is that everything being equal, don't go for dopamine as a first-line agent. Though, since dopamine keeps well on the shelf, it's what is available on code carts or in the pixus. If the patient needs a pressor, NOW, start the dopamine until pharmacy can mix you up a bag of norepi. Using dopamine isn't like "killing" a patient. Just keep a more wary eye out for rhythm issues.
 
exactly



Not so fast. That meta-analysis was basically predominantly made up of patients from the SOAP. Look at the numbers.

The bottom line is that everything being equal, don't go for dopamine as a first-line agent. Though, since dopamine keeps well on the shelf, it's what is available on code carts or in the pixus. If the patient needs a pressor, NOW, start the dopamine until pharmacy can mix you up a bag of norepi. Using dopamine isn't like "killing" a patient. Just keep a more wary eye out for rhythm issues.

my presentation went well today actually

yeah all ionotropes (IV) ones were associated with higher mortialities (of course in the patient population requiring them, they were probably at higher risk anyway...) except for dopamine at 'renoprotective doses' and what I mean by that is 2-10 mcg/kg/min and no more. a study was done looking at 5mcg/kg/min of dopamine plus 5mg of fuorsemide drip per hour vs 20mg/hr furosemide alone and both groups had similar output but the former group had less adverse effects since there was a decrease in need for diuretic as well as the ionotrope dose was not arrhythmogenic (and only a small incresae in contractility in comparison to renal vascular dilation)
 
my presentation went well today actually

yeah all ionotropes (IV) ones were associated with higher mortialities (of course in the patient population requiring them, they were probably at higher risk anyway...) except for dopamine at 'renoprotective doses' and what I mean by that is 2-10 mcg/kg/min and no more. a study was done looking at 5mcg/kg/min of dopamine plus 5mg of fuorsemide drip per hour vs 20mg/hr furosemide alone and both groups had similar output but the former group had less adverse effects since there was a decrease in need for diuretic as well as the ionotrope dose was not arrhythmogenic (and only a small incresae in contractility in comparison to renal vascular dilation)

http://jewishhospital-cincinnati.com/files/Bad_Medicine_Low_Dose_Dopamine.pdf
 
also, sepsis you treat whats causing the sepsis. I was arguing for dopamine in the setting of cardiorenal syndrome type 1-4, not type 5.
 
also, sepsis you treat whats causing the sepsis. I was arguing for dopamine in the setting of cardiorenal syndrome type 1-4, not type 5.

Ah. Well. The cardiologists have a love for dopamine that I don't always get. I'll have to read your papers.
 
Ah. Well. The cardiologists have a love for dopamine that I don't always get. I'll have to read your papers.

cardiologists AND nephrologists :D (or future ones like me)

but yes you make valid points that it doesnt have any place in septic patients.
 
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/CHF/36635

"The mortality reduction seen in acute heart failure with the novel blood vessel relaxer serelaxin may be a real effect from reduced end-organ damage and faster decongestion, exploratory analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial data suggested.

Safety results from that trial indicated a 37% reduction at 6 months in both cardiovascular death risk and in all-cause mortality with numbers needed to treat of less than 30.

The effect was virtually identical in combined analysis of the phase II and phase III studies with the drug (hazard ratio 0.62 for all-cause death, P=0.0076), Marco Metra, MD, of the University of Brescia, Italy, and colleagues reported online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Serelaxin treatment was associated with reduced markers of cardiac, renal, and liver damage and with less congestion at day two of the heart failure admission, which all correlated with 6-month mortality "providing a potential mechanism for the improved survival of serelaxin-treated patients."
 
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/CHF/36635

"The mortality reduction seen in acute heart failure with the novel blood vessel relaxer serelaxin may be a real effect from reduced end-organ damage and faster decongestion, exploratory analysis of the RELAX-AHF trial data suggested.

Safety results from that trial indicated a 37% reduction at 6 months in both cardiovascular death risk and in all-cause mortality with numbers needed to treat of less than 30.

The effect was virtually identical in combined analysis of the phase II and phase III studies with the drug (hazard ratio 0.62 for all-cause death, P=0.0076), Marco Metra, MD, of the University of Brescia, Italy, and colleagues reported online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Serelaxin treatment was associated with reduced markers of cardiac, renal, and liver damage and with less congestion at day two of the heart failure admission, which all correlated with 6-month mortality "providing a potential mechanism for the improved survival of serelaxin-treated patients."

I think whoever wrote that didn't know what p values were. There was no reduction in mortality or readmission. There was a reduction in "dyspnea" and mortality at 180 days.
The p value was 0.37 for the "days-alive up to day 60" mortality. Actually placebo had more days alive.

The actual study: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61855-8/abstract

My thouths on the 180 day mortality- If the drug doesn't reduce mortality in the hospital and doesn't reduce it out of the hospital... how on earth is it going to reduce mortality at 180 days. If you do enough analyses, just by statistics, something is going to be positive.
 
Top