Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics in congestive heart failure

Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for acute heart failure

BACKGROUND

Acute heart failure (AHF) is new onset of, or a sudden worsening of, chronic heart failure characterised by congestion in about 95% of cases or end-organ hypoperfusion in 5% of cases. Treatment often requires urgent escalation of diuretic therapy, mainly through hospitalisation. This Cochrane review evaluated the efficacy of intravenous loop diuretics strategies in treating AHF in individuals with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification III or IV and fluid overload.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intravenous continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for the initial treatment of acute heart failure in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through systematic searches of bibliographic databases and in clinical trials registers including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CPCI-S on the Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), and the European Union Trials register. We conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was performed on 29 February 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with AHF, NYHA classification III or IV, regardless of aetiology or ejection fraction, where trials compared intravenous continuous infusion of loop diuretics with intermittent bolus injection in AHF. We excluded trials with chronic stable heart failure, cardiogenic shock, renal artery stenosis, or end-stage renal disease. Additionally, we excluded studies combining loop diuretics with hypertonic saline, inotropes, vasoactive medications, or renal replacement therapy and trials where diuretic dosing was protocol-driven to achieve a target urine output, due to confounding factors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened papers for inclusion and reviewed full-texts. Outcomes included weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission following discharge, and occurrence of acute kidney injury. We performed risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis where data permitted and assessed certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven RCTs, spanning 32 hospitals in seven countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Data collection ranged from eight months to six years. Following exclusion of participants in subgroups with confounding treatments and different clinical settings, 681 participants were eligible for review. These additional study characteristics, coupled with our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, improve the applicability of the body of the evidence as they reflect real-world clinical practice. Meta-analysis was feasible for net weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission, and acute kidney injury. Literature review and narrative analysis explored daily fluid balance; cardiovascular mortality; B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) change; N-terminal-proBNP change; and adverse incidents such as ototoxicity, hypotension, and electrolyte imbalances. Risk of bias assessment revealed two studies with low overall risk, four with some concerns, and one with high risk. All sensitivity analyses excluded trials at high risk of bias. Only narrative analysis was conducted for 'daily fluid balance' due to diverse data presentation methods across two studies (169 participants, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect). Results of narrative analysis varied. For instance, one study reported higher daily fluid balance within the first 24 hours in the continuous infusion group compared to the bolus injection group, whereas there was no difference in fluid balance beyond this time point. Continuous intravenous infusion of loop diuretics may result in mean net weight loss of 0.86 kg more than bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.86 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.28; 5 trials, 497 participants; P < 0.001, I2 = 21%; very low-certainty evidence). Importantly, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high risk of bias showed there was insufficient evidence for a difference in bodyweight loss between groups (MD 0.70 kg, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.46; 3 trials, 378 participants; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality between continuous infusion and bolus injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.90; 5 trials, 530 participants; P = 0.19, I2 = 4%; low-certainty evidence). Despite sensitivity analysis, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. No trials measured cardiovascular mortality. There may be little to no difference in the length of hospital stay between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -4.84 to 2.64; 4 trials, 211 participants; P = 0.57, I2 = 88%; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis improved heterogeneity; however, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. There may be little to no difference in the readmission to hospital between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 3 trials, 400 participants; P = 0.31, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show insufficient evidence for a difference in the readmission to hospital between groups. There may be little to no difference in the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse event between continuous infusion and bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.49; 3 trials, 491 participants; P = 0.92, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show that continuous infusion may make little to no difference on the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse events compared to the bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of available data comparing two delivery methods of diuretics in acute heart failure found that the current data are insufficient to show superiority of one strategy intervention over the other. Our findings were based on trials meeting stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure validity. Despite previous reviews suggesting advantages of continuous infusion over bolus injections, our review found insufficient evidence to support or refute this. However, our review, which excluded trials with clinical confounders and RCTs with high risk of bias, offers the most robust conclusion to date.

Diuretic Strategies in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Narrative Review

Background

Heart failure is a common condition with considerable associated costs, morbidity, and mortality. Patients often present to hospital with dyspnea and edema. Inadequate inpatient decongestion is an important contributor to high readmission rates. There is little evidence concerning diuresis to guide clinicians in caring for patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Contemporary diuretic strategies have been defined by expert opinion and older landmark clinical trials.

Objective

To present a narrative review of contemporary recommendations, along with their underlying evidence and pharmacologic rationale, for diuretic strategies in inpatients with acute decompensated heart failure.

Data Sources

PubMed, OVID, and Embase databases were searched from inception to December 22, 2022, with the following search terms: heart failure, acute heart failure, decompensated heart failure, furosemide, bumetanide, ethacrynic acid, hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, metolazone, chlorthalidone, spironolactone, eplerenone, and acetazolamide.

Study Selection

Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews involving at least 100 adult patients (> 18 years) were included. Trials involving torsemide, chlorothiazide, and tolvaptan were excluded.

Data Synthesis

Early, aggressive administration of a loop diuretic has been associated with expedited symptom resolution, shorter length of stay, and possibly reduced mortality. Guidelines make recommendations about dose and frequency but do not recommend any particular loop diuretic over another; however, furosemide is most commonly used. Guidelines recommend that the initial furosemide dose (on admission) be 2-2.5 times the patient's home dose. A satisfactory diuretic response can be defined as spot urine sodium content greater than 50-70 mmol/L at 2 hours; urine output greater than 100-150 mL/h in the first 6 hours or 3-5 L in 24 hours; or a change in weight of 0.5-1.5 kg in 24 hours. If congestion persists after the maximization of loop diuretic therapy over the first 24-48 hours, an adjunctive diuretic such as thiazide or acetazolamide should be added. If decongestion targets are not met, continuous infusion of furosemide may be considered.

Conclusions

Heart failure with congestion can be managed with careful administration of high-dose loop diuretics, supported by thiazides and acetazolamide when necessary. Clinical trials are underway to further evaluate this strategy.

Diuretic therapy in congestive heart failure

In heart failure, fluid overload is a major pathological mechanism leading to vascular congestion, pulmonary congestion and elevated jugular venous pressures. Diuretics play a significant role in the management of patients with congestive heart failure. It is used to relieve the congestive symptoms of heart failure. However, the appropriate use of diuretics remains challenging due to various complications like electrolyte abnormalities, worsening renal function and diuretic resistance. This has prompted towards the search of safer and effective alternatives. This review evaluates the use of diuretics in congestive heart failure and discusses the complications of different types of diuretics, which is essential for successful management of congestion in patients with heart failure and hence to optimise the outcome for the patients.

Improved Bone Quality and Bone Healing of Dystrophic Mice by Parabiosis

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a degenerative muscle disorder characterized by a lack of dystrophin expression in the sarcolemma of muscle fibers. DMD patients acquire bone abnormalities including osteopenia, fragility fractures, and scoliosis indicating a deficiency in skeletal homeostasis. The dKO (dystrophin/Utrophin double knockout) is a more severe mouse model of DMD than the mdx mouse (dystrophin deficient), and display numerous clinically-relevant manifestations, including a spectrum of degenerative changes outside skeletal muscle including bone, articular cartilage, and intervertebral discs. To examine the influence of systemic factors on the bone abnormalities and healing in DMD, parabiotic pairing between dKO mice and mdx mice was established. Notably, heterochronic parabiosis with young mdx mice significantly increased bone mass and improved bone micro-structure in old dKO-hetero mice, which showed progressive bone deterioration. Furthermore, heterochronic parabiosis with WT C56/10J mice significantly improved tibia bone defect healing in dKO-homo mice. These results suggest that systemic blood-borne factor(s) and/or progenitors from WT and young mdx mice can influence the bone deficiencies in dKO mice. Understanding these circulating factors or progenitor cells that are responsible to alleviate the bone abnormalities in dKO mice after heterochronic parabiosis might be useful for the management of poor bone health in DMD.

Optimal diuretic strategies in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality in the world. According to a 2019 American Heart Association report, about 6.2 million American adults had HF between 2013 and 2016, being responsible for almost 1 million admissions. As the population ages, the prevalence of HF is anticipated to increase, with 8 million Americans projected to have HF by 2030, posing a significant public health and financial burden. Acute decompensated HF (ADHF) is a syndrome characterized by volume overload and inadequate cardiac output associated with symptoms including some combination of exertional shortness of breath, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea (PND), fatigue, tissue congestion (e.g., peripheral edema) and decreased mentation. The pathology is characterized by hemodynamic abnormalities that result in autonomic imbalance with an increase in sympathetic activity, withdrawal of vagal activity and neurohormonal activation (NA) resulting in increased plasma volume in the setting of decreased sodium excretion, increased water retention and in turn an elevation of filling pressures. These neurohormonal changes are adaptive mechanisms which in the short term are associated with increased contractility of the left ventricular (LV) and improvement in cardiac output. But chronically, the failing heart is unable to overcome the excessive pressure and volume leading to worsening HF. The primary symptomatic management of ADHF includes intravenous (IV) diuresis to help with decongestion and return to euvolemic status. Even though diuretics have not been shown to provide any mortality benefit, they have been clinically proven to be of significant benefit in the acute decompensated phase, as well as in chronic management of HF. Loop diuretics remain the mainstay of therapy for symptomatic management of HF with use of thiazide diuretics for synergistic effect in the setting of diuretic resistance. Poor diuretic efficacy has been linked with higher mortality and increased rehospitalizations.

[Diuretics as a problem-Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, use in edema or hypertension]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Diuretics are key elements of the pharmacotherapy of diseases in internal medicine. Currently, they are particularly used in the treatment of edema and hypertension. For the treatment with diuretics some rules exist that help to improve the effectiveness and success. The article explains these rules, especially regarding combination treatment and meaningful dose escalation. Additionally, the side effects of treatment are critically discussed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

There is little evidence for the influence of diuretics in the treatment of edema on prognostic factors, such as mortality and comorbidities. For an improvement of the prognosis other substances are more important, e.g. angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers; however, diuretics in the treatment of hypertension show clear positive effects on the endpoints. In recent years a problem of side effects was demonstrated (skin cancer). Comparing the benefits regarding prognosis in the treatment of hypertension with the side effects, the administration but with appropriate protective measures seems to be warranted.

Effect of diuretic infusion clinic in preventing hospitalization for patients with decompensating heart failure

Introduction:

It is proposed that access to administering intravenous furosemide outside the hospital can contribute to lowering hospital admissions for heart failure. This study aims to evaluate the effect of outpatient furosemide infusion protocol in preventing hospitalization for patients with decompensating heart failure. This constitutes designing a viable clinical pathway in hospitals using a multidisciplinary heart failure program.

Methods:

A prospective interventional study testing the effect of diuretic infusion clinic in preventing hospitalization for patients with decompensating heart failure was conducted on 150 decompensating heart failure patients requiring hospital admission. Only 105 patients met the criteria and subsequently enrolled in the study. Each patient was administered intravenous furosemide infusion one or more times according to the protocol and depending on their symptoms of decompensation. Patients were referred for admission at any point once there is no improvement of their medical condition, or referred to heart failure clinic when clinical picture improved as observed by the treating team.

Results:

In total, 14 of 105 patients who received intravenous furosemide infusion did not respond to diuretic infusion protocol and required hospital admission while 91 patients responded to same protocol and did not require admission, P value was statistically significant in three laboratory test measures of potassium (<0.001), urea (0.004), and creatinine (0.008). Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was observed in 70 (76.9%) responders with a mean ejection fraction of 23% and in 9 (64.3%) non-responders with mean ejection fraction of 19.9%.

Conclusion:

Outpatient intravenous furosemide infusion protocol is effective in preventing hospitalization for decompensating heart failure and a viable clinical pathway for heart failure programs.

Continuous versus intermittent administration of furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diuretic therapy is important in critically ill patients because fluid overload impairs organ function and increases mortality. Compared to intermittent administration, continuous infusion of loop diuretics is theoretically superior in terms of diuresis and electrolyte balance. However, the available evidence is susceptible to carryover diuretic effects and resistance in earlier crossover trials. Consequently, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel-group randomized controlled trials to compare these two strategies in adults with acute decompensated heart failure. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inceptions to May 26, 2018. We pooled the data using a random effects model. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, and body weight reduction. We analyzed 12 parallel-group randomized controlled trials involving 923 patients. Compared with intermittent administration, continuous infusion of furosemide was not associated with an improvement in all-cause mortality (risk ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 2.16), length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 0.88 days; 95% CI, - 2.76 to 1.01), or 24-h urine output (WMD 489.17 mL; 95% CI, - 183.18 to 1161.51), but was significantly associated with a greater body weight reduction (WMD 0.63 kg; 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.02). No differences in hypokalemia, hyponatremia, increased serum creatinine level, and hypotension were noted. Continuous infusion of furosemide, compared to intermittent administration, is associated with a greater body weight reduction and potential increase in 24-h urine output. The limited available evidence suggests no difference in adverse events between both strategies. Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42017083878).

Furosemide as a functional marker of acute kidney injury in ICU patients: a new role for an old drug

New pharmacokinetics insight suggests that the furosemide pharmacology occurring in ICU patients with AKI is similar, but not equal to that described in chronic stable renal patients. Even if the diuretic response to furosemide is expressed by a steep dose-response curve positively correlated with renal function, pharmacodynamic limitations occur when creatinine clearance is < 20 ml/min or urine output is < 500 ml/12 h. In such cases, other factors specifically due to acute tubular injury can interfere with the furosemide-induced diuretic output. As modality of administration recent reports and metanalysis, even if not conclusive, suggest that for the same given dose a continuous infusion of furosemide was superior in diuretic response. For septic shock patients on CVVHDF where treatment adds an additional clearance of furosemide the maximum diuretic response is achieved by a continuous infusion of 20 mg/h of furosemide. At this infusion rate the reached plasma level was < 20 mg/L, a range considered safe and not ototoxic. Therefore, the severity of AKI establishes whether a patient will respond to furosemide. In this review we summarized all these recent updates, also suggesting that the diuretic response under continuous infusion may allow assessing glomerular and tubular functions with increased reliability than a bolus dose. However, validation studies are still needed to support continuous infusion as a stress test.

Continuous infusion of furosemide versus intermittent boluses in acute decompensated heart failure: Effect on thoracic fluid content

INTRODUCTION

The administration of loop diuretics in the management of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) whether IV boluses or continuous infusion is still controversial. We intended to evaluate differences between the two administration routes on the thoracic fluid content (TFC) and the renal functions.

METHODS

Sixty patients with ADHF admitted to the critical care medicine department (Cairo University, Egypt) were initially enrolled in the study. Twenty patients were excluded due to EF > 40%, myocardial infarction within 30 days, and baseline serum creatinine level > 4.0 mg/dL. Furosemide (120 mg/day) was given to the remaining 40 pts who continued the study after 1:1 randomization to either continuous infusion (group-I, 20 pts) or three equal intermittent daily doses (group-II, 20 pts). Subsequent dose titration was allowed after 24 h, but not earlier, according to patient's response. No other diuretic medications were allowed. All patients were daily evaluated for NYHA class, urine output, TFC, body weight, serum K+, and renal chemistry.

RESULTS

The median age (Q1-Q3) was 54.5 (43.8-63.8) years old with 24 (60%) males. Apart from TFC which was significantly higher in group-I, the admission demographic, clinical, laboratory and co-morbid conditions were similar in both groups. There was statistically insignificant tendency for increased urine output during the 1st and 2nd days in group-I compared to group-II (p = .08). The body weight was decreased during the 1st day by 2 (1.5-2.5) kg in group-I compared to 1.5 (1-2) kg in group-II, (p = .03). These changes became insignificant during the 2nd day (p = .4). The decrease of TFC was significantly higher in group-I than in group-II [10 (6.3-14.5) vs 7 (3.3-9.8) kΩ-1 during the first day and 8 (6-11) vs 6 (3.3-8.5) kΩ-1 during the second day in groups-I&II respectively, P = .02 for both]. There was similar NYHA class improvement in both groups (p = .7). The serum creatinine was increased by 0.2 (0.1-0.5) vs 0 (-0.1 to 0.2) mg% and the CrCl was decreased by 7.4 (4.5-12.3) vs 3.1 (0.2-8.8) ml/min in groups-I&II respectively (p = .009 and .02 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that continuous furosemide infusion in ADHF might cause greater weight loss and more decrease in TFC with no symptomatic improvement and possibly with more nephrotoxic effect.

Rationale and study design of intravenous loop diuretic administration in acute heart failure: DIUR-AHF

AIMS

Although loop diuretics are the most commonly used drugs in acute heart failure (AHF) treatment, their short-term and long-term effects are relatively unknown. The significance of worsening renal function occurrence during intravenous treatment is not clear enough. This trial aims to clarify all these features and contemplate whether continuous infusion is better than an intermittent strategy in terms of decongestion efficacy, diuretic efficiency, renal function, and long-term prognosis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a prospective, multicentre, randomized study that compares continuous infusion to intermittent infusion and a low vs. high diuretic dose of furosemide in patients with a diagnosis of acute heart failure, BNP ≥ 100 pg/mL, and specific chest X-ray signs. Randomization criteria have been established at a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated scheme of either twice-daily bolus injection or continuous infusion for a time period ranging from 72 to 120 h. The initial dose will be 80 mg/day of intravenous furosemide and, in the case of poor response, will be doubled using an escalation algorithm. A high diuretic dose is defined as a furosemide daily amount >120 mg/day respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous and high dose groups could reveal a more intensive diuresis and a greater decongestion with respect to intermittent and low dose groups; high dose and poor loop diuretic efficiency should be related to increased diuretic resistance, renal dysfunction occurrence, and greater congestion status. Poor diuretic response will be associated with less decongestion and an adverse prognosis.

Stability of furosemide and chlorothiazide stored in syringes

PURPOSE

The results of a study to determine the stability of solutions of furosemide and chlorothiazide over 96 hours are reported.

METHODS

Chlorothiazide and furosemide were diluted in 5% dextrose USP to final concentrations of 10 and 1 mg/mL, respectively, and combined. In addition, sample solutions of chlorothiazide in dextrose, furosemide in dextrose, and dextrose alone were prepared for control purposes. The resulting solutions were analyzed immediately after preparation and 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours later using a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) system with an electrospray ionization source. Mixtures and samples were diluted 10,000-fold prior to LC-MS/MS analysis so that concentrations of both drugs would be within the assay's linear range of detection.

RESULTS

LC-MS/MS analysis showed that chlorothiazide typically eluted at 2.6 minutes and furosemide at 4.8 minutes. Each compound was degraded by exposure to strong ultraviolet light in a time-dependent manner. Both unmixed and mixed solutions retained over 90% of the original concentrations of chlorothiazide and furosemide for up to 96 hours. Furosemide and chlorothiazide are commonly used concomitantly to maximize diuresis in pediatric patients; the study findings suggest that solutions of furosemide and chlorothiazide can be combined in the same syringe without loss of stability for up to 96 hours.

CONCLUSION

Solutions of chlorothiazide (10 mg/mL) and furosemide (1 mg/mL) stored either separately or together in polypropylene syringes remained stable for up to 96 hours at room temperature and protected from light.

Cardio-renal syndrome

Cardio-renal syndrome is a commonly encountered problem in clinical practice. Its pathogenesis is not fully understood. The purpose of this article is to highlight the interaction between the cardiovascular system and the renal system and how their interaction results in the complex syndrome of cardio-renal dysfunction. Additionally, we outline the available therapeutic strategies to manage this complex syndrome.

Current and Potential Therapeutic Strategies for Hemodynamic Cardiorenal Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) encompasses conditions in which cardiac and renal disorders co-exist and are pathophysiologically related. The newest classification of CRS into seven etiologically and clinically distinct types for direct patient management purposes includes hemodynamic, uremic, vascular, neurohumoral, anemia- and/or iron metabolism-related, mineral metabolism-related and protein-energy wasting-related CRS. This classification also emphasizes the pathophysiologic pathways. The leading CRS category remains hemodynamic CRS, which is the most commonly encountered type in patient care settings and in which acute or chronic heart failure leads to renal impairment.

SUMMARY

This review focuses on selected therapeutic strategies for the clinical management of hemodynamic CRS. This is often characterized by an exceptionally high ratio of serum urea to creatinine concentrations. Loop diuretics, positive inotropic agents including dopamine and dobutamine, vasopressin antagonists including vasopressin receptor antagonists such as tolvaptan, nesiritide and angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors are among the pharmacologic agents used. Additional therapies include ultrafiltration (UF) via hemofiltration or dialysis. The beneficial versus unfavorable effects of these therapies on cardiac decongestion versus renal blood flow may act in opposite directions. Some of the most interesting options for the outpatient setting that deserve revisiting include portable continuous dobutamine infusion, peritoneal dialysis and outpatient UF via hemodialysis or hemofiltration.

KEY MESSAGES

The new clinically oriented CRS classification system is helpful in identifying therapeutic targets and offers a systematic approach to an optimal management algorithm with better understanding of etiologies. Most interventions including UF have not shown a favorable impact on outcomes. Outpatient portable dobutamine infusion is underutilized and not well studied. Revisiting traditional and novel strategies for outpatient management of CRS warrants clinical trials.

New medical therapies for heart failure

Heart failure (HF) can rightfully be called the epidemic of the 21(st) century. Historically, the only available medical treatment options for HF have been diuretics and digoxin, but the capacity of these agents to alter outcomes has been brought into question by the scrutiny of modern clinical trials. In the past 4 decades, neurohormonal blockers have been introduced into clinical practice, leading to marked reductions in morbidity and mortality in chronic HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Despite these major advances in pharmacotherapy, our understanding of the underlying disease mechanisms of HF from epidemiological, clinical, pathophysiological, molecular, and genetic standpoints remains incomplete. This knowledge gap is particularly evident with respect to acute decompensated HF and HF with normal (preserved) LVEF. For these clinical phenotypes, no drug has been shown to reduce long-term clinical event rates substantially. Ongoing developments in the pharmacotherapy of HF are likely to challenge our current best-practice algorithms. Novel agents for HF therapy include dual-acting neurohormonal modulators, contractility-enhancing agents, vasoactive and anti-inflammatory peptides, and myocardial protectants. These novel compounds have the potential to enhance our armamentarium of HF therapeutics.

Loop diuretics in acute heart failure: beyond the decongestive relief for the kidney

Current goals in the acute treatment of heart failure are focused on pulmonary and systemic decongestion with loop diuretics as the cornerstone of therapy. Despite rapid relief of symptoms in patients with acute decompensated heart failure, after intravenous use of loop diuretics, the use of these agents has been consistently associated with adverse events, including hypokalemia, azotemia, hypotension, and increased mortality. Two recent randomized trials have shown that continuous infusions of loop diuretics did not offer benefit but were associated with adverse events, including hyponatremia, prolonged hospital stay, and increased rate of readmissions. This is probably due to the limitations of congestion evaluation as well as to the deleterious effects linked to drug administration, particularly at higher dosage. The impaired renal function often associated with this treatment is not extensively explored and could deserve more specific studies. Several questions remain to be answered about the best diuretic modality administration, global clinical impact during acute and post-discharge period, and the role of renal function deterioration during treatment. Thus, if loop diuretics are a necessary part of the treatment for acute heart failure, then there must be an approach that allows personalization of therapy for optimal benefit and avoidance of adverse events.

Clinical Use of Diuretics in Heart Failure, Cirrhosis, and Nephrotic Syndrome

Diuretics play significant role in pharmacology and treatment options in medicine. This paper aims to review and evaluate the clinical use of diuretics in conditions that lead to fluid overload in the body such as cardiac failure, cirrhosis, and nephrotic syndrome. To know the principles of treatment it is essential to understand the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that cause the need of diuresis in the human body. Various classes of diuretics exist, each having a unique mode of action. A systemic approach for management is recommended based on the current guidelines, starting from thiazides and proceeding to loop diuretics. The first condition for discussion in the paper is cardiac failure. Treatment of ascites in liver cirrhosis with spironolactone as the primary agent is highlighted with further therapeutic options. Lastly, management choices for nephrotic syndrome are discussed and recommended beginning from basic sodium restriction to combined diuretic therapies. Major side effects are discussed.

Comparison of three diuretic treatment strategies for patients with acute decompensated heart failure

BACKGROUND

There are few prospective data available for establishing a standard diuretic administration regimen for patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of three regimens of furosemide administration in patients with ADHF with regard to diuresis, renal functions, and in-hospital outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 43 patients who presented with ADHF were randomized into three groups: (a) continuous infusion (cIV) of 160 mg furosemide for 16 h/day (n = 15); (b) bolus injections (bI) of 80 mg furosemide twice a day (n = 14); (c) and administration of 160 mg furosemide plus hypertonic saline solution (HSS) as an infusion for 30 min once a day (n = 14). All regimens were continued for 48 h. Study endpoints were negative fluid balance assessed by loss of body weight, change in the serum creatinine (baseline to 48 h and baseline to compensated state), and length of hospitalization.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the mean change in serum creatinine level at the end of 48 h between groups (p = 0.08). There was also no significant difference among groups regarding loss of body weight (p = 0.66). A significantly shorter hospitalization was observed in patients treated with HSS compared with the other groups (cIV group 6.6 ± 3.4 days vs. bI group 7.9 ± 4.1 days vs. HSS group 3.7 ± 1.3 days; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

All three furosemide regimens have similar renal safety and efficacy measures. However, administration of furosemide plus HSS may be the preferred diuretic strategy because of its shorter hospital stay.

Current Management of Heart Failure: When to Refer to Heart Failure Specialist and When Hospice is the Best Option

Heart failure is a common syndrome caused by different abnormalities of the cardiovascular system that result in impairment of the ventricles in filling or ejecting blood. It is one of the most common causes of hospitalization in the United States, with a very high cost to the health care system. This article focuses on the causes of left ventricle dysfunction and the presentation and management of heart failure, both acute and chronic.

Loop Diuretics in Clinical Practice

Diuretics are commonly used to control edema across various clinical fields. Diuretics inhibit sodium reabsorption in specific renal tubules, resulting in increased urinary sodium and water excretion. Loop diuretics are the most potent diuretics. In this article, we review five important aspects of loop diuretics, in particular furosemide, which must be considered when prescribing this medicine: (1) oral versus intravenous treatment, (2) dosage, (3) continuous versus bolus infusion, (4) application in chronic kidney disease patients, and (5) side effects. The bioavailability of furosemide differs between oral and intravenous therapy. Additionally, the threshold and ceiling doses of furosemide differ according to the particular clinical condition of the patient, for example in patients with severe edema or chronic kidney disease. To maximize the efficiency of furosemide, a clear understanding of how the mode of delivery will impact bioavailability and the required dosage is necessary.

Goal-directed diuresis: A case - control study of continuous furosemide infusion in critically ill trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Excessive crystalloid administration is common and associated with negative outcomes in critically ill trauma patients. Continuous furosemide infusion (CFI) to remove excessive fluid has not been previously described in this population. We hypothesized that a goal-directed CFI is more effective for fluid removal than intermittent bolus injection (IBI) diuresis without excess incidence of hypokalemia or renal failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CFI cases were prospectively enrolled between November 2011 and August 2012, and matched to historic IBI controls by age, gender, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and net fluid balance (NFB) at diuresis initiation. Paired and unpaired analyses were performed to compare groups. The primary endpoints were net fluid balance, potassium and creatinine levels. Secondary endpoints included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free days (VFD), and mortality.

RESULTS

55 patients were included, with 19 cases and 36 matched controls. Mean age was 54 years, mean ISS was 32.7, and mean initial NFB was +7.7 L. After one day of diuresis with CFI vs. IBI, net 24 h fluid balance was negative (-0.55 L vs. +0.43 L, P = 0.026) only for the CFI group, and there was no difference in potassium and creatinine levels. Cumulative furosemide dose (59.4mg vs. 25.4mg, P < 0.001) and urine output (4.2 L vs. 2.8 L, P < 0.001) were also significantly increased with CFI vs. IBI. There were no statistically significant differences in ICU LOS, hospital LOS, VFD, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to IBI, goal-directed diuresis by CFI is more successful in achieving net negative fluid balance in patients with fluid overload with no detrimental side effects on renal function or patient outcome.

The Effect of Furosemide Dose Administered in the Out-of-hospital Setting on Renal Function Among Patients with Suspected Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Background

The most effective dose of prehospital furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) has not yet been identified and concerns of worsening renal function have limited its use.

Objective

To assess if administering high-dose furosemide is associated with worsening renal function.

Methods

The authors conducted a 2-center chart review for patients who presented via a single Emergency Medical Service (EMS) from June 5, 2009 through May 17, 2013. Inclusion criteria were shortness of breath, primarily coded as ADHF, and the administration of furosemide prior to emergency department (ED) arrival. A total of 331 charts were identified. The primary endpoint was an increase in creatinine (Cr) of more than 0.3 mg/dL from admission to any time during hospital stay. Exploratory endpoints included survival, length-of-stay (LOS), disposition, urine output in the ED, change in BUN/Cr from admission to discharge, and change in Cr from admission to 72 hours and discharge.

Results

When treated as a binary variable, there was no association observed between an increase in Cr of more than 0.3 mg/dL and prehospital furosemide dose. Baseline characteristics found to be associated with dose were included in the logistic regression model. Lowering the dose of prehospital furosemide was associated with higher odds of attaining a 0.3 mg/dL increase in Cr (adjusted OR = 1.49 for a 20 mg decrease; P = .019). There was no association found with any of the exploratory endpoints.

Conclusions

Patients who received higher doses of furosemide prehospitally were less likely to have an increase of greater than 0.3 mg/dL in Cr during the hospital course.

NievesLC, MehrtensGM, PoresN, PickrellC, TanisJ, SattyT, ChuangM, YoungTC, MerlinMA. The effect of furosemide dose administered in the out-of-hospital setting on renal function among patients with suspected acute decompensated heart failure. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(1):1-8.

Continuous versus bolus intermittent loop diuretic infusion in acutely decompensated heart failure: a prospective randomized trial

Introduction

Intravenous loop diuretics are a cornerstone of therapy in acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We sought to determine if there are any differences in clinical outcomes between intravenous bolus and continuous infusion of loop diuretics.

Methods

Subjects with ADHF within 12 hours of hospital admission were randomly assigned to continuous infusion or twice daily bolus therapy with furosemide. There were three co-primary endpoints assessed from admission to discharge: the mean paired changes in serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and reduction in B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). Secondary endpoints included the rate of acute kidney injury (AKI), change in body weight and six months follow-up evaluation after discharge.

Results

A total of 43 received a continuous infusion and 39 were assigned to bolus treatment. At discharge, the mean change in serum creatinine was higher (+0.8 ± 0.4 versus -0.8 ± 0.3 mg/dl P <0.01), and eGFR was lower (-9 ± 7 versus +5 ± 6 ml/min/1.73 m²P <0.05) in the continuous arm. There was no significant difference in the degree of weight loss (-4.1 ± 1.9 versus -3.5 ± 2.4 kg P = 0.23). The continuous infusion arm had a greater reduction in BNP over the hospital course, (-576 ± 655 versus -181 ± 527 pg/ml P = 0.02). The rates of AKI were comparable (22% and 15% P = 0.3) between the two groups. There was more frequent use of hypertonic saline solutions for hyponatremia (33% versus 18% P <0.01), intravenous dopamine infusions (35% versus 23% P = 0.02), and the hospital length of stay was longer in the continuous infusion group (14. 3 ± 5 versus 11.5 ± 4 days, P <0.03). At 6 months there were higher rates of re-admission or death in the continuous infusion group, 58% versus 23%, (P = 0.001) and this mode of treatment independently associated with this outcome after adjusting for baseline and intermediate variables (adjusted hazard ratio = 2.57, 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 6.58 P = 0.04).

Conclusions

In the setting of ADHF, continuous infusion of loop diuretics resulted in greater reductions in BNP from admission to discharge. However, this appeared to occur at the consequence of worsened renal filtration function, use of additional treatment, and higher rates of rehospitalization or death at six months.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01441245. Registered 23 September 2011.

Contemporary strategies in the diagnosis and management of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is an important public health problem, and strategies are needed to improve outcomes and decrease health care resource utilization and costs. Its prevalence has increased as the population ages, and HF continues to be associated with a high mortality rate and frequent need for hospitalization. The total cost of care for patients with HF was $30.7 billion in 2012, and it is estimated to more than double to $69.8 billion by 2030. Given this reality, there has been recent investigation into ways of identifying and preventing HF in patients at risk (stage A HF) and those with cardiac structural and functional abnormalities but no clinical HF symptoms (stage B). For patients who have symptoms of HF (stage C), there has been important research into the most effective ways to decongest patients hospitalized with acute decompensated HF and prevent future hospital readmissions. Successful strategies to treat patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction, which has increased in prevalence, continue to be sought. We are in the midst of a rapid evolution in our ability to care for patients with end-stage HF (stage D) because of the introduction of and improvements in mechanical circulatory support. Left ventricular assist devices used as destination therapy offer an important therapeutic option to patients who do not qualify for heart transplant because of advanced age or excessive comorbidity. This review provides a thorough update on contemporary strategies in the diagnosis and management of HF by stage (A to D) that have emerged during the past several years.

A patient with heart failure and worsening kidney function

There is high prevalence of CKD, defined by reduced GFR, in patients with heart failure. Reduced kidney function is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in this patient population. The cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) involves a bidirectional relationship between the heart and kidneys whereby dysfunction in either may exacerbate the function of the other, but this syndrome has been difficult to precisely define because it has many complex physiologic, biochemical, and hormonal abnormalities. The pathophysiology of CRS is not completely understood, but potential mechanisms include reduced kidney perfusion due to decreased forward flow, increased right ventricular and venous pressure, and neurohormonal adaptations. Treatment options include inotropic medications; diuretics; ultrafiltration; and medications, such as β-blockers, inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, and more novel treatments that focus on unique aspects of the pathophysiology. Recent observational studies suggest that treatments that result in a decrease in venous pressure and lead to hemoconcentration may be associated with improved outcomes. Patients with CRS that is not responsive to medical interventions should be considered for ventricular assist devices, heart transplantation, or combined heart and kidney transplantation.