Review Article: The Cardiorenal Syndrome: A Review
Review Article: The Cardiorenal Syndrome: A Review
Review Article: The Cardiorenal Syndrome: A Review
Review Article
The Cardiorenal Syndrome: A Review
B. N. Shah1 and K. Greaves2
1
2 Department
1. Introduction
The heart is responsible for supplying the organs and tissues
of the body with blood, and the kidneys, amongst other
functions, play an integral role in fluid balance and salt
homeostasis. It should therefore come as little surprise that
renal dysfunction frequently accompanies cardiac failure
and that cardiac dysfunction frequently accompanies renal
failure. This interdependent relationship has come to be
known as the cardiorenal syndrome [1]. This phrase has
been in use since 2004 [2], but despite generating a plethora
of papers in the literature and being discussed at length in
dedicated conferences, CRS has until very recently lacked a
universally accepted definition, and numerous key questions
remain unanswered [3]. What is the true prevalence? What
is the long-term prognosis? What is the exact underlying
pathophysiology? We shall cover the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and current management of CRS in this paper,
but we will begin with brief case histories which help
demonstrate the heterogeneity of patients who fall under the
umbrella term of CRS.
2
hemodialysis, echocardiography was repeated and revealed
normal systolic function.
Case 3. A 32-year-old lady developed end-stage renal failure
secondary to type 1 diabetes mellitus. She commenced
hemodialysis in 2007, and just prior to this, transthoracic
echocardiography revealed concentric ventricular hypertrophy and severely impaired systolic function. 6 months after
she had been started on hemodialysis, repeat echocardiography revealed marked improvement in systolic function, with
LV dysfunction now only mild rather than severe.
Case 4. A 28-year-old fit gentleman, with no past medical
history, was admitted feeling unwell for the past 3 days.
He was extremely ill when first seen: temperature 40 C,
BP 70/35 mmHg, and pulse rate 130. Initial blood tests
revealed marked leukocytosis (white cell count 41.5 109 /L,
neutrophil count 38.5 109 /L) and acute renal failure
(urea 6.2 mmol/L and creatinine 184 mmol/L). Transthoracic
echocardiography revealed severely impaired systolic function. He was diagnosed with septic shock and treated with
fluids and broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics. In less
than 72 hours, he was feeling significantly better and renal
function had returned to normal. Numerous blood and urine
cultures and throat swabs failed to yield a culpable organism.
Repeat echocardiography one week later revealed normal
systolic function.
All of these patients had coexistent cardiac and renal
dysfunction but clearly with grossly dierent underlying
pathology and, therefore, prognoses.
2. Epidemiology
Renal dysfunction is unfortunately extremely prevalent in
patients with congestive cardiac failure (CCF), and the associated statistics make sombre reading. Data from the Acute
Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE)
of over 100,000 patients (admitted with ADHF) revealed
that almost one third of patients have a history of renal
dysfunction [4]. Another study found that, in a survey of
outpatients with congestive cardiac failure, 39% patients
in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class 4 and 31%
of patients in NYHA class 3 had severely impaired renal
function (creatinine clearance <30 mls/minute) [5]. Baseline
renal function is as important an adverse prognostic marker
as ejection fraction and NYHA functional class [6]. Elevated
serum creatinine on admission to hospital with ADHF
and worsening renal function during admission for ADHF
have both been shown to predict prolonged hospitalisation,
increased need for intensive care facilities, and increased
mortality [7, 8].
Similarly, renal failure is clearly linked with increased
adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Almost 44% of deaths in
patients with end-stage renal failure (ESRF) are due to cardiovascular diseases [9], and a 2006 meta-analysis indicated
that patients with ESRF are more likely to die from cardiovascular causes than from renal failure itself [10]. Death
from cardiovascular causes is 1020 times more common
4. Pathophysiology
As our knowledge of CRS expands, it is becoming increasingly clear how complex the interaction between heart and
Table 1: Schematic of the classification system proposed by Ronco et al. [18] for subdivision of CRS into 5 subtypes based upon aetiology
of dysfunction.
CRS type
Name
Acute cardiorenal
Chronic cardiorenal
Acute renocardiac
Chronic renocardiac
Secondary
Description
Acute cardiac dysfunction leading to acute kidney
injury
Chronic heart failure leading to renal dysfunction
Acute kidney injury leading to acute cardiac
dysfunction
Chronic renal failure leading to cardiac
dysfunction
Systemic condition causing cardiac and renal
dysfunction
Example
Acute coronary syndrome causing acute heart
failure and then renal dysfunction
Congestive cardiac failure
Uraemic cardiomyopathy secondary to acute
renal failure
Left ventricular hypertrophy and diastolic heart
failure secondary to renal failure
Septic shock, vasculitis
Ang II has numerous negative eects upon the cardiovascular system in heart failure patients, increasing both preload
and afterload and thus myocardial oxygen demands. The
main changes induced by Ang II are illustrated in Figure 1,
but one of the most important recent advances has been
recognition of the promotion of vascular inflammation [26].
Ang II activates the enzyme NADPH oxidase in endothelial
cells, vascular smooth muscle cells [27], renal tubular cells
[28], and cardiomyocytes [29]. This leads to the formation
of ROS, mostly superoxide. A growing body of evidence
suggests that ROS are responsible for the processes of
aging, inflammation, and progressive organ dysfunction
[30]. Nitric oxide (NO) is responsible for vasodilation and
natriuresis and assists in renal control of ECFV. Superoxide
antagonises these eects [31] but also reduces bioavailability
of NO. Oxidative stress damages DNA [32], proteins [33],
carbohydrates [34], and lipids [35] and also shifts cytokine
production towards proinflammatory mediators such as
interleukin-1, interleukin-6, and tumour necrosis factor
alpha [36]. Interleukin-6 also stimulates fibroblasts leading
to increased cardiac and renal fibrosis.
4.3. The Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS) in CRS. SNS
activation is initially a protective mechanism in CCF patients,
akin to RAAS activation. The aim is to maintain cardiac
output by positive chronotropic and inotropic eects on
the myocardium. Unfortunately, chronic SNS activation
also results in numerous negative eects upon the cardiovascular system and kidneys. SNS overactivity leads to
reduction in beta-adrenoceptor density within myocardium
and also reduced adrenoceptor sensitivity in both renal
[37] and cardiac failure [38]. Catecholamines are also
thought to contribute to left ventricular hypertrophy seen
in some patients [39]. SNS activation leads to increased
cardiomyocyte apoptosis [40] and increases the release of the
neurohormone Neuropeptide Y (NPY). NPY is a vascular
growth promoter leading to neointimal formation (and
thus atherosclerosis) [41], induces vasoconstriction, and
also interferes with normal immune system function [42].
Renal sympathetic denervation in patients with resistant
hypertension significantly improved renal function in one
quarter of patients [43], and bilateral renal nerve ablation has
been shown to reduce blood pressure at one-year followup
fibrosis
RAAS activation
SNS activation
Na/H2 O retention
Vasoconstriction
Preload
Afterload
Oxidative stress
Vascular
inflammation
Atherosclerosis
Myocardial O2 demand
Figure 1: Illustration of the pathophysiological pathways activated by angiotensin II. Both preload and afterload are ultimately increased,
leading to worsening cardiac and renal function (IL-6 = Interleukin 6; TNF- = Tumour necrosis factor alpha; TGF- = Transforming
growth Factor beta; ROS = Reactive oxygen species).
5. Management of CRS
Medical management of patients with concomitant cardiac
and renal dysfunction remains tremendously challenging,
5
and this is exacerbated by the fact that the vast majority
of trials providing evidence for treatments in heart failure
excluded patients with significant renal impairment [69].
The heterogeneous nature of patients with CRS also poses
unique challenges with no single success-guaranteed therapy.
5.1. Diuretics: Not as Safe as Commonly Perceived? There is
limited trial data proving mortality benefit for diuretics
in CRS, but they have long been deemed an essential
management strategy in these patients. Data from the
ADHERE registry suggests that 81% of patients were using
chronic diuretic therapy at the time of admission with
ADHF [4]. Studies have shown, however, that furosemide
decreases GFR in many patients [70], and higher doses of
diuretics are independently associated with sudden cardiac
death or death from pump failure [71, 72]. Furosemide
also stimulates the RAAS and can thus increase fibrosis
[30]. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of
loop diuretics in management of patients with acute kidney
injury found no mortality benefit, though there was a shorter
required duration of renal replacement therapy [73]. A large
observational cohort studyexamining the use of diuretics
in intensive care patients with acute renal failurefound
a significantly increased risk of death or nonrecovery of
baseline renal function in the patients receiving diuretics
[74]. However, the two papers mentioned above looked at all
mechanisms of renal dysfunction, not just the heart failure
population. There is unfortunately a dearth of high-quality
randomised controlled evidence to support or refute the use
of diuretics in patients with cardiac and renal dysfunction.
Therefore, in the absence of definitive data proving harm in
heart failure population, diuretics should not be withheld
from volume-overloaded patients.
Diuretic resistance is frequently used as a surrogate
marker of poor prognosis in CCF patients. The most
probable culpable mechanisms are inadequate diuretic dose,
excessive sodium intake, delayed intestinal absorption due to
gut mucosal oedema, decreased diuretic excretion into urine,
and increased sodium reabsorption from other parts of the
nephron not blocked by loop diuretics (e.g., distal convoluted
tubule) [75, 76]. Concomitant use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs can also contribute to diuretic resistance
by diminishing synthesis of vasodilator and natriuretic
prostaglandins [77].
In such patients there are several management options.
Firstly, one should bear in mind that furosemide does not
have a smooth dose-response curve, meaning that no natriuresis would occur until a threshold rate of drug excretion
is reached [78]. Consequently, a patient not responding to
40 mg furosemide should have the dose doubled to 80 mg
rather than the frequency doubled to twice daily. Secondly,
patients should be instructed to restrict their salt intake to
help achieve net fluid loss. Thirdly, the patient may require IV
diuretic therapy to avoid the poor bioavailability frequently
encountered due to reduced gastrointestinal blood flow,
reduced intestinal peristalsis, and intestinal mucosal oedema.
A Cochrane review [79] has confirmed that continuous IV
furosemide infusion achieves a greater diuresis than bolus
6
IV doses and this is associated with reduced mortality and
shorter hospital stay. Other treatment options include adding
in a thiazide diuretic to block distal sodium reabsorption,
a potassium-sparing diuretic such as spironolactone, or
adding salt-poor albumin. Salt-poor albumin is thought
to enhance delivery of furosemide to the kidney, and
one small study suggested adding salt-poor albumin to a
furosemide infusion significantly increased sodium excretion
[80].
5.2. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitors. ACE
inhibitors are known to reduce mortality in patients with
heart failure [81], though the majority of these studies
excluded patients with significant renal impairment. The
Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival (CONSENSUS) study revealed that patients with the most severe
CCF had a substantial increase in creatinine on initiation
of an ACE inhibitor irrespective of baseline creatinine [82].
However, it is comforting to note that in the CONSENSUS
trial the outcomes were better in the treatment arm even
though mean creatinine increased. Indeed, some have proposed that the rise in creatinine after initiation of an ACE
inhibitor actually may identify the subgroup of patients who
derive the most benefit [83].
ACE inhibitors should be used with caution in patients
with CRS and renal functional monitored closely during
initiation and uptitration. This caution should not, however,
be used to avoid ACE inhibitor therapy. Studies have
shown that patients with first presentation of pulmonary
oedema are frequently discharged without initiation of
ACE inhibitor therapy for fear of worsening renal function
[84]. However, as mentioned above, patients who derive
prognostic benefit over the longer term from these drugs
may experience slight deterioration of renal function in the
short term. A concomitant reduction in diuretic dosage may
be required (especially once the patient is euvolemic) to
facilitate safe uptitration of the ACE inhibitor. The chances
of deterioration of renal function after starting ACE inhibitor
therapy can also be minimised by avoiding simultaneous use
of NSAIDs and ensuring the patient is not hypovolemic at
onset of treatment.
7. Conclusion
As our review has hopefully demonstrated, CRS is an
ominent development in many patients. However, prognosis
is not uniform across all five subtypes and highly dependent
upon the nature of the underlying disease process(es). The
worst prognoses are in those with chronic dysfunction of
both organ systems. CRS has generally been used so far
to describe patients with renal dysfunction secondary to
chronic heart failure; this group of patients have a particularly high morbidity and mortality. Diculties remain
regarding diagnostic pathways and appropriate management
strategies. Fortunately, however, cardiologists and nephrologists are now acutely aware of the scale of the problem posed
by CRS, and this awakening will hopefully translate into
greater research into this fascinating yet challenging clinical
conundrum.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
Abbreviations
ACE:
ADHF:
AVP:
BNP:
CCF:
CKD:
CRAS:
CRS:
ECFV:
ESC:
ESRF:
GFR:
HSS:
IAP:
IV:
LV:
NO:
NPY:
NSAID:
RAAS:
ROS:
SNS:
UF:
Angiotensin-converting enzyme
Acute decompensated heart failure
Arginine vasopressin
Brain natriuretic peptide
Congestive cardiac failure
Chronic kidney disease
Cardiorenal anaemia syndrome
Cardiorenal syndrome
Extracellular fluid volume
European Society of Cardiology
End-stage renal failure
Glomerular filtration rate
Hypertonic saline solution
Intraabdominal pressure
Intravenous
Left ventricle
Nitric oxide
Neuropeptide Y
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug
Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system
Reactive oxygen species
Sympathetic nervous system
Ultrafiltration.
References
[1] J. T. Heywood, The cardiorenal syndrome: lessons from
the ADHERE database and treatment options, Heart Failure
Reviews, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 195201, 2005.
[2] NHLBI Working Group, Cardiorenal connections in heart
failure and cardiovascular disease, National Heart, Lung
and Blood Institute Website, October 2009, http://www.nhlbi
.nih.gov/meetings/workshops/cardiorenal-hf-hd.htm.
[3] C. Geisberg and J. Butler, Addressing the challenges of
cardiorenal syndrome, Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine,
vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 485491, 2006.
8
[4] K. F. Adams Jr., G. C. Fonarow, C. L. Emerman et al.,
Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalised for
heart failure in the United States: rationale, design and
preliminary observations from the first 100,000 cases in
the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry
(ADHERE), American Heart Journal, vol. 149, pp. 209216,
2005.
[5] F. A. McAlister, J. Ezekowitz, M. Tonelli, and P. W. Armstrong, Renal insuciency and heart failure: prognostic and
therapeutic implications from a prospective cohort study,
Circulation, vol. 109, no. 8, pp. 10041009, 2004.
[6] M. G. Shlipak and B. M. Massie, The clinical challenge
of cardiorenal syndrome, Circulation, vol. 110, no. 12, pp.
15141517, 2004.
[7] H. L. Hillege, A. R. J. Girbes, P. J. de Kam et al., Renal
function, neurohormonal activation, and survival in patients
with chronic heart failure, Circulation, vol. 102, no. 2, pp.
203210, 2000.
[8] D. E. Forman, J. Butler, Y. Wang et al., Incidence, predictors
at admission, and impact of worsening renal function among
patients hospitalized with heart failure, Journal of the
American College of Cardiology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 6167,
2004.
[9] National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes
and Digestive and Kidney diseases, Annual Data Report,
USRDS, Bethesda, Md, USA, 1997, http://www.usrds.org/.
[10] M. Tonelli, N. Wiebe, B. Culleton et al., Chronic kidney
disease and mortality risk: a systematic review, Journal of the
American Society of Nephrology, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 20342047,
2006.
[11] A. E. G. Raine, R. Margreiter, F. P. Brunner et al., Report
on management of renal failure in Europe, XXII, 1991,
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 735,
1992.
[12] C. A. Herzog, J. Z. Ma, and A. J. Collins, Poor long-term
survival after acute myocardial infarction among patients on
long-term dialysis, New England Journal of Medicine, vol.
339, no. 12, pp. 799805, 1998.
[13] K. Greaves, R. Chen, L. Ge et al., Mild to moderate renal
impairment is associated with increased left ventricular
mass, International Journal of Cardiology, vol. 124, no. 3, pp.
384386, 2008.
[14] R. K. Wali, G. S. Wang, S. S. Gottlieb et al., Eect of kidney
transplantation on left ventricular systolic dysfunction and
congestive heart failure in patients with end-stage renal
disease, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol.
45, no. 7, pp. 10511060, 2005.
[15] P. S. Parfrey, J. D. Harnett, R. N. Foley et al., Impact of
renal transplantation on uremic cardiomyopathy, Transplantation, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 908914, 1995.
[16] R. K. Burt, S. Gupta-Burt, W. N. Suki, C. G. Barcenas, J. J.
Ferguson, and C. T. van Buren, Reversal of left ventricular
dysfunction after renal transplantation, Annals of Internal
Medicine, vol. 111, no. 8, pp. 635640, 1989.
[17] S. R. C. Ferreira, V. A. Moises, A. Tavares, and A. PachecoSilva, Cardiovascular eects of successful renal transplantation: a 1-year sequential study of left ventricular morphology
and function, and 24-hour blood pressure profile, Transplantation, vol. 74, no. 11, pp. 15801587, 2002.
[18] C. Ronco, M. Haapio, A. A. House, N. Anavekar, and R.
Bellomo, Cardiorenal syndrome, Journal of the American
College of Cardiology, vol. 52, no. 19, pp. 15271539, 2008.
[19] C. Ronco, P. McCullough, S. D. Anker et al., Cardio-renal
syndromes: report from the consensus conference of the
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
10
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
11
[109] G. Licata, P. Di Pasquale, G. Parrinello et al., Eects of highdose furosemide and small-volume hypertonic saline solution infusion in comparison with a high dose of furosemide
as bolus in refractory congestive heart failure: long-term
eects, American Heart Journal, vol. 145, no. 3, pp. 459466,
2003.