OBJECTIVES:
Acute heart failure is associated with low cardiac output syndrome and renal dysfunction. However, it is not known whether a goal-directed protocol guided by tightly controlled hemodynamic variables, including pulmonary artery catheter, will safely improve clinical renal dysfunction markers in these patients when compared to a less invasive approach.
METHODS:
Pilot, randomized clinical trial aimed at patients with known heart failure, low cardiac output syndrome and renal dysfunction with less than 48 hours from onset. We randomized two groups: (a) goal-directed therapy monitored with pulmonary artery catheter and (b) conventional therapy with central venous catheter. Hemodynamic parameters, venous oxygen saturation, serum lactate, fluid repositions and vasoactive drugs were compared considering renal function improvement after 72 hours as the primary study endpoint. We included 15 goal-directed therapy and 16 conventional therapy patients. The study has assessed patients on baseline looking for significant improvement at 72 hours of the following parameters in the goal-directed therapy and conventional therapy groups: urine output, serum creatinine, venous oxygen saturation and serum lactate.
RESULTS:
Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. In the first 24 hours there was a lower volume of fluid reposition in the goal-directed therapy group, although 72 hours later such reposition was equivalent. The use of inotropic agents was similar between groups. There was an improvement to the renal function and the hemodynamic parameter in both study groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
The option for the protocol with pulmonary artery catheter setting is justified only if there is clinical evidence of serious pulmonary congestion associated to low peripheral perfusion.
KEYWORDS:
Cardiogenic shock; Pulmonary artery catheter; Monitoring hemodynamic; Heart failure; acute kidney injury
