Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2020
Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS-HF.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ultrafiltration for acute heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS-HF.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Trial
- Regarding the interpretation of creatinine clearance changes following loop diuretics in the intensive care unit.Renal failure · 2026Article
- Advances and controversies in acute decompensated heart failure treatment: beta-blocker roles, emerging devices, and future directions.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- A Pragmatic Approach to Acute Cardiorenal Syndrome: Diagnostic Strategies and Targeted Therapies to Overcome Diuretic Resistance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Cardiorenal Syndrome in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Insights into Pathophysiology and Recent Advances.Cardiorenal medicine · 2025Review
- Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024Review
- Cardiovascular Consequences of Acute Kidney Injury: Treatment Options.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Therapeutic approach in heart failure with poor diuretic response: peripheral ultrafiltration vs. conventional treatment.ESC heart failure · 2023Article
- New Insight in Cardiorenal Syndrome: From Biomarkers to Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Peritoneal Dialysis for Refractory Heart Failure from a Congenitally Corrected Transposition of the Great Arteries who has not Undergone Definitive Surgery: A Case Report.Acta medica Philippina · 2023Article
- New aspects in cardiorenal syndrome and HFpEF.Clinical kidney journal · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Ultrafiltration is not commonly used because of higher incidence of worsening renal function without improved decongestion. We examined differential outcomes of high versus low fluid removal and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (EF) in CARRESS-HF (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure). Methods and Results Baseline characteristics in the ultrafiltration arm were compared according to 24-hour ultrafiltration-based fluid removal above versus below the median. Patients were stratified by EF (≤40% or >40%). We compared clinical parameters of clinical decongestion during the hospitalization based on initial (≤24 hours) response to ultrafiltration. Cox-proportional hazards models were used to identify associations between fluid removal <24 hours and composite of death, hospitalization, or unscheduled outpatient/emergency department visit during study follow-up. The intention-to-treat analysis included 93 patients. Within 24 hours, median fluid removal was 1.89 L (Q1, Q3: 1.22, 3.16). The high fluid removal group had a greater urine output (9.08 versus 6.23 L,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.