Home Therapies in Advanced Heart Failure: Inotropes and Diuretics

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.

Heart Failure: Priorities for Transition to Home

Nurses play a key role in promoting successful transitions of patients with heart failure (HF) from the hospital to the ambulatory setting. Engaging patients and caregivers in discharge teaching early in the hospitalization can enhance their understanding of HF as a clinical syndrome and identify precipitants of decompensation. Effective transitional care interventions for patient with HF include a phone call within 48 to 72 hours and a follow-up appointment within 7 days. Early symptom identification and treatment are key aspects of HF care to improve quality of life and minimize risk of hospitalization.

Inotropes in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure: Not Only Palliative Care

Patients with advanced heart failure suffer from severe and persistent symptoms, often not responding disease-modifying drugs, a marked limitation of functional capacity and poor quality of life that can ameliorate with inotropic drugs therapy. In small studies, pulsed infusions of classical inotropes (ie, dobutamine and milrinone) are associated with improvement in hemodynamic parameters and quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure. However, because of the adverse effects of these drugs, serious safety issues have been raised. Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing inodilators with a triple mechanism of action, whose infusion results in hemodynamic, neurohormonal, and inflammatory cytokine improvements in patients with chronic advanced HF. In addition, levosimendan has important pleiotropic effects, including protection of myocardial, renal, and liver cells from ischemia-reperfusion injury, and anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects; these properties possibly make levosimendan an "organ protective" inodilator. In clinical trials and real-world evidence, infusion of levosimendan at fixed intervals is safe and effective in patients with advanced HF, alleviating clinical symptoms, reducing hospitalizations, and improving the quality of life. Therefore, the use of repeated doses of levosimendan could represent the therapy of choice as a bridge to transplant/left ventricular assist device implantation or as palliative therapy in patients with advanced heart failure.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Prognostication in Critical Illness and Heart, Kidney, and Liver Diseases

Specialty palliative care (PC) clinicians are frequently asked to discuss prognosis with patients and their families. When conveying information about prognosis, PC clinicians need also to discuss the likelihood of prolonged hospitalization, cognitive and functional disabilities, and death. As PC moves further and further upstream, it is crucial that PC providers have a broad understanding of curative and palliative treatments for serious diseases and can collaborate in prognostication with specialists. In this article, we present 10 tips for PC clinicians to consider when caring and discussing prognosis for the seriously ill patients along with their caregivers and care teams. This is the second in a three-part series around prognostication in adult and pediatric PC.

Rethinking the Meaning of Palliation in Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Palliative care follows a philosophy of care that focuses upon the quality of life in patients with chronic or life-threatening illness. It also focuses upon the needs of their families which is a wider scope of care. Cardiovascular disease, and specifically heart failure, affects millions of patients and family members who have a symptom burden that exceeds that of many cancers and other chronic diseases.

RECENTLY FINDINGS

Historically palliative care has been viewed as an alternative to curative therapies, but over time, it is now recognized that it should be implemented earlier in the course of chronic diseases. Although non-oncologic patients now comprise over half of the patient seen by palliative care, patients with cardiovascular disease are still not being referred to palliative care. Palliative care goes beyond advance directives and end of life planning. There is a need to continue to expand the view of palliative care to encompass interventions that help improve the overall health of these patients, including their psychosocial well-being and quality of life. The collection of papers in this journal provides insight into the breadth of palliative care for patients with heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases.