You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Biomedicines
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

7 September 2023

Worsening Renal Function and Adverse Outcomes in Patients with HFpEF with or without Atrial Fibrillation

and
1
Department of Cardiology, Jiangxi Provincial People’s Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College, Nanchang 330000, China
2
Department of Gastroenterology, Ganzhou People’s Hospital, Ganzhou 341000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Biomedicines2023, 11(9), 2484;https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11092484
This article belongs to the Special Issue Pathophysiology, Risk Factors and Management in HFpEF Patients with Comorbidities
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

Since worsening renal function (WRF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist in preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), we aimed to investigate the effect of WRF on the prognosis of HFpEF patients with and without AF. The study population of this study (n = 1763) was based on the subset of the Americas in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial (TOPCAT). We found that the cumulative probabilities of the primary composite outcome and cardiovascular death were significantly higher in AF patients post-WRF when compared to non-AF patients. In the time-dependent Cox proportional hazard model, WRF was significantly associated with higher risks of adverse outcomes (primary composite outcome: HR = 1.58 (95% CI, 1.19–2.11); all-cause death: HR = 1.50 (95% CI, 1.10–2.06); cardiovascular death: HR, 2.00 (95% CI, 1.34–3.00)) after adjustments for confounding factors at baseline in HFpEF patients with AF, whereas in HFpEF patients without AF, WRF was not significantly associated with any adverse outcome. p for interactions for the primary composite outcome, cardiovascular death, and AF were significant. In conclusion, these findings highlight that WRF was associated with a greater risk of the primary composite outcome, all-cause death, and cardiovascular death in HFpEF patients with AF.

1. Introduction

Heart failure (HF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality [1]. As a heterogeneous syndrome, HF patients usually suffer from diverse comorbidities, among which worsening renal function (WRF) has a relatively high incidence (approximately 50% in HF patients) [2,3]. According to the Study of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) trial, WRF is associated with higher risks of all-cause mortality, the combined endpoint of death or hospitalization for HF, and pump-failure death [4]. In the Second Prospective Randomized Study of Ibopamine on Mortality and Efficacy (PRSIME II) trial, HF patients with reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (44 mL/min, consistent with underlying WRF) showed a three-fold greater risk of mortality than HF patients without reduced eGFR [5]. In addition, several studies have shown that adverse effects of WRF on the prognosis of HF patients were irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% [3,6].
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), characterized by the LVEF of HF patients > 50%, accounts for 50% of the total HF cases [7,8]. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common cardiac arrhythmias that affects millions of patients worldwide [9]. According to the EuroHeart Failure survey, 34% of HF patients suffered from AF before being hospitalized, whereas 9% of the patients were diagnosed with AF during hospitalization [10]. As a common comorbidity of HFpEF, AF has a strong correlation with age and shares common clinical features with HFpEF [11]. Additionally, AF is an independent predictor for adverse prognosis in HFpEF patients [12]. Both WRF and AF are common comorbidities in the development of HFpEF, and a number of HFpEF patients suffer from both WRF and AF. However, the overall impact of the two comorbidities on HFpEF patients remains unclear. Therefore, our current study aimed to explore the effect of WRF on the prognosis of HFpEF patients with and without AF.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

We included the study population in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist Trial (TOPCAT; https://clinicaltrials.gov. accessed on 12 January 2023. Unique identifier: NCT00094302. Unique identifier: NCT00094302), a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III clinical trial that involved 3445 HFpEF patients with a mean follow-up of 3.3 years [13]. The objective of this trial was to assess the effect of spironolactone in improving the prognosis of HFpEF patients when compared to a placebo [13]. In brief, all the included participants were ≥50 years and had at least one symptom and a sign of HF. They were from Georgia, Russia, or the Americas (Brazil, Argentina, Canada, United States), characterized by an LVEF ≥ 45%, a serum potassium level of < 5 mmol/L, a systolic blood pressure < 140 mmHg, and either elevated brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) within two months or a previous history of HF hospitalization within a year. Patients would be excluded if they took other aldosterone antagonists within 14 days before the trial, had a life expectancy of <3 years, or suffered from severe renal dysfunction (serum creatinine ≥2.4 mg/dL or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2).
Baseline characteristics of patients including demographics, morbidities of comorbid conditions, and medication treatment significantly varied due to geographic disparities [14,15,16]. To keep data consistent and reduce errors caused by different baseline characteristics, the population of this study was restricted to the Americas. We excluded patients due to the lack of a record of AF history. Finally, 1763 patients with HFpEF were involved in the present analysis. The findings of this study were reported according to the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement.
The TOPCAT trial was approved by the institutional review board locally. All the participants signed informed consent. The dataset used in this study was acquired from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Our current study was approved by Jiangxi Provincial People’s Hospital, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College.

2.2. Definition of WRF

WRF was defined as a ≥30% decline in eGFR during follow-up. Compared with kidney failure and doubling of creatinine levels, which were late events in chronic kidney diseases, a ≥30% decline in eGFR occurred more commonly and at earlier stages of kidney diseases. The National Kidney Foundation and the Food and Drug Administration co-sponsored a scientific workshop to determine whether alternative GFR-based endpoints could be used in clinical trials and concluded that a 30% to 40% decline in eGFR over two to three years might be an acceptable surrogate endpoint [17].

2.3. Study Outcomes

Consistent with the TOPCAT trial, the primary outcome was a composite of HF hospitalization, aborted cardiac arrest, and cardiovascular death. The secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, stroke, myocardial infarction, and AF (referred to as new-onset AF in HFpEF patients without a history of AF or AF recurrence in HFpEF patients with AF). The definitions of the studied outcomes were applied from the original TOPCAT trial. During the follow-up, the outcomes of this study were recorded through subject contacts or by interview and medical record review at the clinic site. The Clinical Endpoints Center independently adjudicated the event of each outcome.

2.4. Follow-Up Method

As reported previously, in the TOPCAT trial, the follow-up visits to monitor symptoms, medications, and events and to dispense the study drug were planned every four months during the subject’s first year of the study, and every six months thereafter. Data on participants who did not have an event of time-to-event outcomes were censored at the date of last available follow-up information for clinical events.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Baseline patient characteristics were displayed according to the history of AF. Continuous variables were presented in the form of mean with standard deviation (normal distribution) or medians with interquartile ranges (nonmoral distributions). Categorical variables were expressed as numbers and percentages. For continuous variables, differences between groups were investigated using unpaired Student’s t-tests (normal distribution) or the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test (non-normal distribution). As for categorical variables, we conducted chi-square tests or the Kruskal–Wallis test. Incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were performed to evaluate the crude cumulative probability of primary and secondary outcomes prior to or post-WRF. Both crude and multivariable-adjusted time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models were performed to assess the impact of WRF and AF on adverse outcomes, displayed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. The significantly different variables (age, sex, race, treatment group, smoking status, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, BMI, SBP, diabetes mellitus, aspirin, warfarin, long-acting nitrate treatment, diuretics, history of PCI, and pacemaker implantation) at baseline were adjusted. p for interaction was calculated to test the possible relationship between the effect of WRF and AF on adverse outcomes.
All the analyses were performed using R (version 4.1.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Two-tailed p-values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Patient Characteristics

Among all the participants of this study, 743 patients (42.1%) had a history of AF (Table 1) with a mean age of 71.5 ± 9.7 years. The mean age of AF patients was significantly higher than non-AF patients (74.0 ± 8.6 versus 69.6 ± 10.0 years). AF patients had higher proportions of males and white race but a relatively lower body mass index. The eGFR was markedly lower in AF patients, and a higher proportion of non-AF patients were current smokers and suffered from WRF. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus was significantly greater in the non-AF group. The two studied groups had similar proportions of the NYHA functional class levels. Compared with those without AF, more patients with AF used pacemakers and took diuretic, aspirin, long-acting nitrate, or warfarin.
Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics of HFpEF patients with or without AF.

3.2. Cumulative Probability of Adverse Outcomes

In the Kaplan–Meier survival analyses, the cumulative probabilities of all the adverse outcomes prior to WRF were comparable between HFpEF patients with and without AF (Figure 1). In the post-WRF group, the cumulative probabilities of the primary composite outcome (p-value = 0.0083) and cardiovascular death (p-value = 0.0096) were significantly higher in AF patients when compared to non-AF patients (Figure 2). Conversely, the cumulative probability of AF post-WRF was higher in HFpEF patients without AF compared with those with AF (p-value = 0.009). For other adverse events, the two groups of HFpEF patients presented similar risks of stroke, myocardial infarction, HF hospitalization, and all-cause death (p-value > 0.05).
Figure 1. The cumulative probability of adverse outcomes prior to WRF between HFpEF patients with and without AF. Red line indicates HFpEF patients with AF, and blue line indicates HFpEF patients without AF.
Figure 2. The cumulative probability of adverse outcomes post-WRF between HFpEF patients with and without AF. Red line indicates HFpEF patients with AF, and blue line indicates HFpEF patients without AF.

3.3. Incidence Rates of Adverse Outcomes

As shown in Table 2, when compared with non-AF patients post-WRF, AF patients showed increased incidence rates of the primary composite outcome (16.5 (95% CI, 11.6–21.5) versus 9.3 (95% CI, 6.0–12.6) per 100 patient-years), all-cause death (95% CI, 11.5 (7.3–15.8) versus 8.0 (95% CI, 4.9–11.0) per 100 patient-years), cardiovascular death (8.3 (95% CI, 4.6–12.0) versus 4.5 (95% CI, 2.2–6.9) per 100 patient-years), stroke (2.6 (95% CI, 0.5–4.7) versus 1.5 (95% CI, 0.1–2.9) per 100 patient-years), myocardial infarction (2.6 (95% CI, 0.4–4.7) versus 1.2 (95% CI, 0–3.1) per 100 patient-years), and HF hospitalization (10.9 (95% CI, 6.7–15.0) versus 7.4 (95% CI, 4.5–10.4) per 100 patient-years). However, compared with non-AF patients post-WRF, patients with AF had a lower incidence rate of AF (0.9 (95% CI, 0.3–2.2) versus 3.7 (95% CI, 1.6–5.9) per 100 patient-years).
Table 2. Incidence rates (per 100 patient-yrs) for adverse outcomes in HFpEF patients with and without AF.

3.4. Associations of WRF with Adverse Outcomes

As shown in Table 3, in the unadjusted or adjusted analysis, WRF was significantly associated with increased risks of primary composite outcome, HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death among the overall HFpEF patients. In HFpEF patients with AF, the development of WRF was associated with higher risks of the primary composite outcome (1.64 (95% CI, 1.24–2.16)), all-cause death (1.36 (95% CI, 1.01–1.84)), and cardiovascular death (1.84 (95% CI, 1.26–2.71)) in the unadjusted analysis. These associations remained consistent after adjusting for significantly different variables at baseline (primary composite outcome: HR = 1.58 (95% CI, 1.19–2.11); all-cause death: HR = 1.50 (95% CI, 1.10–2.06); cardiovascular death: HR, 2.00 (95% CI, 1.34–3.00)). In HFpEF patients without AF, WRF was not significantly associated with any adverse outcome including the primary composite outcome (1.10 (95% CI, 0.83–1.46)), HF hospitalization (1.28 (95% CI, 0.93–1.76)), cardiovascular death (1.00 (95% CI, 0.65–1.53)), all-cause death (1.24 (95% CI, 0.91–1.70)), stroke (1.49 (95% CI, 0.70–3.16)), myocardial infarction (1.15 (95% CI, 0.64–2.06)), and AF (1.21 (95% CI, 0.76–1.94)) after adjustments.
Table 3. Associations of worsening renal function with adverse outcomes in HFpEF patients with and without AF.
In the p for interaction analysis, the results of all-cause death, HF hospitalization, stroke, and myocardial infarction were not different between non-AF patients with and without WRF (p for interaction > 0.05, Table 3). By contrast, p for interactions for the primary composite outcome (p for interaction = 0.008), cardiovascular death (p for interaction = 0.005), and AF (p for interaction = 0.015) were significant.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to explore the impact of WRF on the prognosis of HFpEF patients with and without AF. Our results based on the TOPCAT trial suggest that WRF was significantly associated with higher risks of the primary composite outcome, all-cause death, and cardiovascular death in HFpEF patients with AF, whereas WRF was not significantly associated with any adverse outcome in HFpEF patients without AF. p for interactions for the primary composite outcome (a composite of HF hospitalization, aborted cardiac arrest, and cardiovascular death), cardiovascular death, and AF were significant. WRF could be a significant risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events in HFpEF patients with AF compared with those without AF.
The heart and kidney interact with each other to maintain the stability of the hemodynamics, blood volume, and vascular tone of the body [18,19]. Any damage that happens in this system could be deleterious, resulting in a cycle of organ dysfunction [19]. In addition, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) including spironolactone are widely used for treatment in HFpEF patients [15,20]. Although spironolactone effectively improves the prognosis of HFpEF patients, it is associated with an increased WRF risk, potentially resulting in underlying renal injury [16].
The presence of WRF is common in HFpEF patients, which is often correlated with a poor prognosis [3,6,21]. Nowadays, the exact mechanisms regarding how WRF aggravates the progression of HFpEF are still uncertain, which may be multifactorial [20]. It is uncertain whether the activation of these mechanisms directly leads to adverse outcomes in HF caused by WRF or is just a marker of severe HF status. In addition, the impact of WRF on HF may differ by HF phenotype. WRF could be considered as a reflection of disrupted hemodynamics during the interaction between the cardiovascular and renal systems [22]. Moreover, WRF may be a marker of general vascular disease including atherosclerosis in the heart.
AF is associated with atrial fibrosis, impaired atrial function, and the dilation of the left atrium, which could be considered as an independent predictor for the prognosis of HFpEF [12,23]. AF and renal impairment have a bidirectional relationship and the prevalence of chronic renal disease appears higher in patients with AF, whereas acute abnormalities in cardiac function including AF are related to an increased risk of kidney injury [19,24,25,26]. Hence, the impact of WRF and AF on the prognosis of HFpEF patients, and the interaction between the two comorbidities, merit further evaluation.
This study investigated the impact of WRF on the prognosis of HFpEF patients with and without AF as well as the interaction between WRF and AF based on the TOPCAT study. We found that WRF was no longer an independent risk factor in the presence of AF, and could significantly interact with AF in the prognosis of HFpEF. Consistent with the underlying mechanisms in WRF, AF might lead to changes in hemodynamics in HF patients. However, this mechanism generally pertains to HFrEF, the contribution of which to HFpEF needs further investigation [12,27].
As a common comorbidity of HFpEF, AF has a strong correlation with age and shares common clinical features with HFpEF. In addition, the presence of WRF is common in HFpEF patients. In our current study, WRF was correlated with a poor prognosis in HFpEF patients, especially for those with AF. Therefore, our results based on the TOPCAT trial indicated that HFpEF patients with AF need to pay attention to the management of renal function in everyday clinical practice. Of note, the cumulative probability of AF prior to WRF was comparable between HFpEF patients with and without AF, whereas the cumulative probability of AF post-WRF was higher in HFpEF patients without AF compared with those with AF. However, these findings of AF incidence did not remain after adjustments, which needs further investigation.

Limitations

There were still several limitations in this study. First, the study population was limited to the Americas, limiting the generality of the results due to the underlying regional variation. Second, the distribution of age and race were not uniform within the two studied groups. Although we have adjusted age and race as the confounding factors in the Cox proportional hazard model, potential bias may still occur. Third, based on the TOPCAT study, participants were evenly divided into the spironolactone or placebo groups, and we failed to subdivide the two treatment groups due to the limited data. Spironolactone has been proven to be associated with increased WRF, thus potentially confounding the results. Forth, as the TOPCAT trial did not reproduce the ultrasound studies, e/é and other parameters of diastolic function could not be further analyzed. In addition, duo to lack of relevant data on the BNP during and after the worsening of renal function, we were unable to conduct the relevant analysis. Finally, the TOPCAT trial included a few patients with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, and further study could examine the impact of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants on our results [28]. In addition, although some studies suggested hyperuricemia as a marker of HFrEF [29], whether similar results were observed in the HFpEF population needs further examination.

5. Conclusions

Based on the TOPCAT trial, our present study demonstrated that WRF was associated with greater risks of the primary composite outcome, all-cause death, and cardiovascular death among HFpEF patients with AF. WRF did not act alone under the presence of AF in HFpEF patients with marked interactions between WRF and AF in the prognosis of HFpEF patients.

Author Contributions

Writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition, L.G.; writing—original draft preparation, X.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Health Commission of Jiangxi province (No. 202310008 to Linjuan Guo).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the study.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledged the patients, investigators, research coordinators, and committee members of the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Snipelisky, D.; Chaudhry, S.P.; Stewart, G.C. The many faces of heart failure. Card. Electrophysiol. Clin. 2019, 11, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bock, J.S.; Gottlieb, S.S. Cardiorenal syndrome: New perspectives. Circulation 2010, 121, 2592–2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Damman, K.; Valente, M.A.; Voors, A.A.; O’Connor, C.M.; van Veldhuisen, D.J.; Hillege, H.L. Renal impairment, worsening renal function, and outcome in patients with heart failure: An updated meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. 2014, 35, 455–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dries, D.L.; Exner, D.V.; Domanski, M.J.; Greenberg, B.; Stevenson, L.W. The prognostic implications of renal insufficiency in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2000, 35, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hillege, H.L.; Girbes, A.R.; de Kam, P.J.; Boomsma, F.; de Zeeuw, D.; Charlesworth, A.; Hampton, J.R.; van Veldhuisen, D.J. Renal function, neurohormonal activation, and survival in patients with chronic heart failure. Circulation 2000, 102, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Damman, K.; Solomon, S.D.; Pfeffer, M.A.; Swedberg, K.; Yusuf, S.; Young, J.B.; Rouleau, J.L.; Granger, C.B.; Mcmurray, J.J. Worsening renal function and outcome in heart failure patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and the impact of angiotensin receptor blocker treatment: Data from the CHARM-study programme. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2016, 18, 1508–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tam, M.C.; Lee, R.; Cascino, T.M.; Konerman, M.C.; Hummel, S.L. Current perspectives on systemic hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Curr. Hypertens. Rep. 2017, 19, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lyle, M.A.; Brozovich, F.V. HFpEF, a disease of the vasculature: A closer look at the other half. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2018, 93, 1305–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kallistratos, M.S.; Poulimenos, L.E.; Manolis, A.J. Atrial fibrillation and arterial hypertension. Pharmacol. Res. 2018, 128, 322–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rivero-Ayerza, M.; Scholte, O.R.W.; Lenzen, M.; Theuns, D.A.; Jordaens, L.; Komajda, M.; Follath, F.; Swedberg, K.; Cleland, J.G. New-onset atrial fibrillation is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality in hospitalized heart failure patients: Results of the EuroHeart Failure Survey. Eur. Heart J. 2008, 29, 1618–1624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kotecha, D.; Lam, C.S.; Van Veldhuisen, D.J.; Van Gelder, I.C.; Voors, A.A.; Rienstra, M. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation: Vicious twins. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016, 68, 2217–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Mamas, M.A.; Caldwell, J.C.; Chacko, S.; Garratt, C.J.; Fath-Ordoubadi, F.; Neyses, L. A meta-analysis of the prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2009, 11, 676–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Pitt, B.; Pfeffer, M.A.; Assmann, S.F.; Boineau, R.; Anand, I.S.; Claggett, B.; Clausell, N.; Desai, A.S.; Diaz, R.; Fleg, J.L.; et al. Spironolactone for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 1383–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bristow, M.R.; Enciso, J.S.; Gersh, B.J.; Grady, C.; Rice, M.M.; Singh, S.; Sopko, G.; Boineau, R.; Rosenberg, Y.; Greenberg, B.H. Detection and management of geographic disparities in the TOPCAT trial: Lessons learned and derivative recommendations. JACC Basic. Transl. Sci. 2016, 1, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  15. Pfeffer, M.A.; Claggett, B.; Assmann, S.F.; Boineau, R.; Anand, I.S.; Clausell, N.; Desai, A.S.; Diaz, R.; Fleg, J.L.; Gordeev, I.; et al. Regional variation in patients and outcomes in the Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial. Circulation 2015, 131, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Beldhuis, I.E.; Myhre, P.L.; Bristow, M.; Claggett, B.; Damman, K.; Fang, J.C.; Fleg, J.L.; Mckinlay, S.; Lewis, E.F.; O’Meara, E.; et al. Spironolactone in patients with heart failure, preserved ejection fraction, and worsening renal function. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 77, 1211–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Levey, A.S.; Inker, L.A.; Matsushita, K.; Greene, T.; Willis, K.; Lewis, E.; de Zeeuw, D.; Cheung, A.K.; Coresh, J. GFR decline as an end point for clinical trials in CKD: A scientific workshop sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation and the US Food and Drug Administration. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2014, 64, 821–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Costanzo, M.R. The cardiorenal syndrome in heart failure. Heart Fail. Clin. 2020, 16, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rosner, M.H.; Ronco, C.; Okusa, M.D. The role of inflammation in the cardio-renal syndrome: A focus on cytokines and inflammatory mediators. Semin. Nephrol. 2012, 32, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Testani, J.M.; Brisco-Bacik, M.A. Worsening renal function and mortality in heart failure: Causality or confounding? Circ. Heart Fail. 2017, 10, e003835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yancy, C.W.; Jessup, M.; Bozkurt, B.; Butler, J.; Casey, D.J.; Colvin, M.M.; Drazner, M.H.; Filippatos, G.S.; Fonarow, G.C.; Givertz, M.M.; et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA focused update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the american college of Cardiology/American heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the heart failure society of america. J. Card. Fail. 2017, 23, 628–651. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kang, J.; Park, J.J.; Cho, Y.J.; Oh, I.Y.; Park, H.A.; Lee, S.E.; Kim, M.S.; Cho, H.J.; Lee, H.Y.; Choi, J.O.; et al. Predictors and prognostic value of worsening renal function during admission in HFpEF versus HFrEF: Data from the KorAHF (Korean acute heart failure) registry. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2018, 7, e007910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kotecha, D.; Holmes, J.; Krum, H.; Altman, D.G.; Manzano, L.; Cleland, J.G.; Lip, G.Y.; Coats, A.J.; Andersson, B.; Kirchhof, P.; et al. Efficacy of beta blockers in patients with heart failure plus atrial fibrillation: An individual-patient data meta-analysis. Lancet 2014, 384, 2235–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Guo, Y.; Gao, J.; Ye, P.; Xing, A.; Wu, Y.; Wu, S.; Luo, Y. Comparison of atrial fibrillation in CKD and non-CKD populations: A cross-sectional analysis from the Kailuan study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2019, 277, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Carrero, J.J.; Trevisan, M.; Sood, M.M.; Barany, P.; Xu, H.; Evans, M.; Friberg, L.; Szummer, K. Incident atrial fibrillation and the risk of stroke in adults with chronic kidney disease: The stockholm CREAtinine measurements (SCREAM) project. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2018, 13, 1314–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ding, W.Y.; Gupta, D.; Wong, C.F.; Lip, G. Pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease. Cardiovasc. Res. 2021, 117, 1046–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ellis, E.R.; Josephson, M.E. Heart failure and tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. Curr. Heart Fail. Rep. 2013, 10, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Uzieblo-Zyczkowska, B.; Krzesinski, P.; Maciorowska, M.; Gorczyca, I.; Jelonek, O.; Wojcik, M.; Blaszczyk, R.; Kaplon-Cieslicka, A.; Gawalko, M.; Tokarek, T.; et al. Antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, including compliance with current guidelines-data from the POLish Atrial Fibrillation (POL-AF) Registry. Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther. 2021, 11, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Welnicki, M.; Gorczyca-Glowacka, I.; Lubas, A.; Wojcik, W.; Jelonek, O.; Maciorowska, M.; Uzieblo-Zyczkowska, B.; Wojcik, M.; Blaszczyk, R.; Rajtar-Salwa, R.; et al. Association of hyperuricemia with impaired left ventricular systolic function in patients with atrial fibrillation and preserved kidney function: Analysis of the POL-AF registry cohort. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 7288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Purified Serum IgG from a Patient with Anti-IgLON5 Antibody Cause Long-Term Movement Disorders with Impaired Dopaminergic Pathways in Mice
Previous
A Neurosurgical Perspective on Brain Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma: Multi-Institutional, Retrospective Analysis
Next