-
Alan S Maisel,
Nevin Katz,
Hans L Hillege,
Andrew Shaw,
Pierluigi Zanco,
Rinaldo Bellomo,
Inder Anand,
Stefan D Anker,
Nadia Aspromonte,
Sean M Bagshaw, [......],
Peter McCullough,
Alexandre Mebazaa,
Alberto Palazzuoli,
Piotr Ponikowski,
Federico Ronco, Geoff Sheinfeld,
Sachin Soni,
Giorgio Vescovo,
Nereo Zamperetti,
Claudio Ronco
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is much symptomatic similarity between acute kidney disease and acute heart disease. Both may present with shortness of breath and chest discomfort, and thus it is not surprising that biomarkers of acute myocardial and renal disease often coexist in many physicians' diagnostic work-up schedules. In this review we explore the similarities and differences between current and future tests of myocardial and renal injury and function, with particular emphasis on the diagnostic utility of currently available biomarkers to assist with the diagnosis of cardiorenal syndromes. Imaging studies have not traditionally been viewed as clinical biomarkers, but as tests of structure and function; they contribute to the diagnostic process, and we believe that they should be considered alongside more traditional biomarkers such as blood and urine measurements of circulating proteins and metabolites. We discuss the place of natriuretic peptides, novel tests of kidney damage as well as kidney function and conclude with a discussion of their place in guiding future research studies whose goals must include better characterization of the degree of dysfunction imposed on one organ system by failure of the other.
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 10/2010; 26(1):62-74. · 3.40 Impact Factor
-
Peter A McCullough,
Mikko Haapio,
Sunil Mankad,
Nereo Zamperetti,
Barry Massie,
Rinaldo Bellomo,
Tomas Berl,
Stefan D Anker,
Inder Anand,
Nadia Aspromonte, [......],
Alexandre Mebazaa,
Alberto Palazzuoli,
Piotr Ponikowski,
Federico Ronco,
Andrew Shaw, Geoff Sheinfeld,
Sachin Soni,
Giorgio Vescovo,
Pierluigi Zanco,
Claudio Ronco
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 04/2010; 25(6):1777-84. · 3.40 Impact Factor
-
Claudio Ronco,
Peter McCullough,
Stefan D Anker,
Inder Anand,
Nadia Aspromonte,
Sean M Bagshaw,
Rinaldo Bellomo,
Tomas Berl,
Ilona Bobek,
Dinna N Cruz, [......],
Pierluigi Zanco,
Alexandre Mebazaa,
Alberto Palazzuoli,
Federico Ronco,
Andrew Shaw, Geoff Sheinfeld,
Sachin Soni,
Giorgio Vescovo,
Nereo Zamperetti,
Piotr Ponikowski
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A consensus conference on cardio-renal syndromes (CRS) was held in Venice Italy, in September 2008 under the auspices of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI). The following topics were matter of discussion after a systematic literature review and the appraisal of the best available evidence: definition/classification system; epidemiology; diagnostic criteria and biomarkers; prevention/protection strategies; management and therapy. The umbrella term CRS was used to identify a disorder of the heart and kidneys whereby acute or chronic dysfunction in one organ may induce acute or chronic dysfunction in the other organ. Different syndromes were identified and classified into five subtypes. Acute CRS (type 1): acute worsening of heart function (AHF-ACS) leading to kidney injury and/or dysfunction. Chronic cardio-renal syndrome (type 2): chronic abnormalities in heart function (CHF-CHD) leading to kidney injury and/or dysfunction. Acute reno-cardiac syndrome (type 3): acute worsening of kidney function (AKI) leading to heart injury and/or dysfunction. Chronic reno-cardiac syndrome (type 4): chronic kidney disease leading to heart injury, disease, and/or dysfunction. Secondary CRS (type 5): systemic conditions leading to simultaneous injury and/or dysfunction of heart and kidney. Consensus statements concerning epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management strategies are discussed in the paper for each of the syndromes.
European Heart Journal 03/2010; 31(6):703-11. · 10.48 Impact Factor
-
Andrew A House,
Inder Anand,
Rinaldo Bellomo,
Dinna Cruz,
Ilona Bobek,
Stefan D Anker,
Nadia Aspromonte,
Sean Bagshaw,
Tomas Berl,
Luciano Daliento, [......],
Alexandre Mebazaa,
Alberto Palazzuoli,
Federico Ronco,
Andrew Shaw, Geoff Sheinfeld,
Sachin Soni,
Giorgio Vescovo,
Nereo Zamperetti,
Piotr Ponikowski,
Claudio Ronco
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 03/2010; 25(5):1416-20. · 3.40 Impact Factor
-
Sean M Bagshaw,
Dinna N Cruz,
Nadia Aspromonte,
Luciano Daliento,
Federico Ronco, Geoff Sheinfeld,
Stefan D Anker,
Inder Anand,
Rinaldo Bellomo,
Tomas Berl, [......],
Peter McCullough,
Alexandre Mebazaa,
Alberto Palazzuoli,
Piotr Ponikowski,
Andrew Shaw,
Sachin Soni,
Giorgio Vescovo,
Nereo Zamperetti,
Pierluigi Zanco,
Claudio Ronco
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 02/2010; 25(5):1406-16. · 3.40 Impact Factor
-
Claudio Ronco,
Peter A McCullough,
Stefan D Anker,
Inder Anand,
Nadia Aspromonte,
Sean M Bagshaw,
Rinaldo Bellomo,
Tomas Berl,
Ilona Bobek,
Dinna N Cruz, [......],
Pierluigi Zanco,
Alexandre Mebazaa,
Alberto Palazzuoli,
Federico Ronco,
Andrew Shaw, Geoff Sheinfeld,
Sachin Soni,
Giorgio Vescovo,
Nereo Zamperetti,
Piotr Ponikowski
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) is a disorder of the heart and kidneys whereby acute or chronic dysfunction in one organ may induce acute or chronic dysfunction of the other. The general definition has been expanded into five subtypes reflecting the primacy of organ dysfunction and the time-frame of the syndrome: CRS type 1 = acute worsening of heart function leading to kidney injury and/or dysfunction; CRS type 2 = chronic abnormalities in heart function leading to kidney injury or dysfunction; CRS type 3 = acute worsening of kidney function leading to heart injury and/or dysfunction; CRS type 4 = chronic kidney disease leading to heart injury, disease and/or dysfunction, and CRS type 5 = systemic conditions leading to simultaneous injury and/or dysfunction of heart and kidney. Different pathophysiological mechanisms are involved in the combined dysfunction of heart and kidney in these five types of the syndrome.
Contributions to nephrology 01/2010; 165:54-67. · 1.49 Impact Factor