Background: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a life-threatening and costly disease. Controversy remainsregarding the efficacy and renal tolerability of ultrafiltration for treating ADHF. We therefore performed thismeta-analysis to evaluate this clinical issue.Methods: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database of controlled trials was performed from inceptionto March 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials. The quality of the included trials and outcomes wasevaluated with the use of the risk of bias assessment tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Developmentand Evaluation (GRADE) approach, respectively. The risk ratio and the standardized mean difference (SMD) or weighted mean difference (WMD) were computed and pooled with fixed-effects or random-effects models.Results: This meta-analysis included 19 studies involving 1281 patients. Ultrafiltration was superior to the controltreatments for weight loss (WMD 1.24 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38–2.09 kg, P = 0.004) and fluid removal(WMD 1.55 L, 95% CI 0.51–2.59 l, P = 0.003) and was associated with a significant increase in serum creatinine levelcompared with the control treatments (SMD 0.15 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.00–0.30 mg/dL, P = 0.04). However, no significanteffects were found for serum N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide level, length of hospital stay, all-causemortality, or all-cause rehospitalization in the ultrafiltration group.Conclusions: The use of ultrafiltration in patients with ADHF is superior to the use of the control treatments for weight loss and fluid removal, but has adverse renal effects and lacks significant effects on long-term prognosis, indicatingthat this approach to decongestion in ADHF patients is efficient for fluid management but less safe renally.
Ultrafiltration for acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
