Heart failure in chronic kidney disease: what the second universal definition changes

Clicks: 18
ID: 331554
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #100 of 152 articles by views in nephrology dialysis transplantation

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 152 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are biologically entwined and clinically difficult to disentangle. The 2026 Second Universal Definition of Heart Failure reframes heart failure as a syndrome defined by symptoms and signs, objective evidence of structural or functional cardiac abnormality, and a dynamic disease trajectory. Its implications for CKD and dialysis require focused consideration. SCOPE: This review interprets the consensus in a nephrology context. It considers the move beyond rigid left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) thresholds; the recognition of at-risk and pre-heart-failure stages; causal classification; trajectories of improvement, remission, recovery, worsening, and decompensation; and the effects of social and geographic context. KEY OBSERVATIONS: In CKD, dyspnoea, oedema, biomarker elevation, and cardiac structural abnormalities are frequent but individually non-diagnostic. Diagnosis requires integration of longitudinal symptoms, congestion, imaging, biomarkers, volume status, and response to treatment. The new framework is especially pertinent to dialysis, where fluid shifts, access flow, myocardial stunning, and altered biomarker clearance complicate phenotyping. It also supports earlier prevention, careful distinction between worsening and decompensated heart failure, and aetiology-directed evaluation rather than reliance on LVEF or administrative hospitalisation codes. INTERPRETATION: The consensus offers nephrology a coherent vocabulary. Its value will depend on avoiding diagnostic inflation, standardising heart-failure phenotyping in CKD trials, and integrating cardiac and kidney care before recurrent congestion and kidney failure occur. It should also improve shared decision making by separating potentially reversible congestion from chronic cardiac disease, and by defining realistic therapeutic aims: prevention, symptom relief, fewer decompensations, preservation of function, and longer survival.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220663091 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Carmine Zoccali, Francesca Mallamaci
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal nephrology dialysis transplantation
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ndt/gfag227
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfag227
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.