Torsemide Versus Furosemide in Patients With Acute Heart Failure (from the ASCEND-HF Trial)

Comparative Effect of Loop Diuretic Prescription on Mortality and Heart Failure Readmission

Loop diuretics are a standard pharmacologic therapy in heart failure (HF) management. Although furosemide is most frequently used, torsemide and bumetanide are increasingly prescribed in clinical practice, possibly because of superior bioavailability. Few real-world comparative effectiveness studies have examined outcomes across all 3 loop diuretics. The study goal was to compare the effects of loop diuretic prescribing at HF hospitalization discharge on mortality and HF readmission. We identified patients in Medicare claims data initiating furosemide, torsemide, or bumetanide after an index HF hospitalization from 2007 to 2017. We estimated 6-month risks of all-cause mortality and a composite outcome (HF readmission or all-cause mortality) using inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for relevant confounders. We identified 62,632 furosemide, 1,720 torsemide, and 2,389 bumetanide initiators. The 6-month adjusted all-cause mortality risk was lowest for torsemide (13.2%), followed by furosemide (14.5%) and bumetanide (15.6%). The 6-month composite outcome risk was 21.4% for torsemide, 24.7% for furosemide, and 24.9% for bumetanide. Compared with furosemide, the 6-month all-cause mortality risk was 1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.7, 1.0) lower for torsemide and 1.0% (95% CI: -1.2, 3.2) higher for bumetanide, and the 6-month composite outcome risk was 3.3% (95% CI: -6.3, -0.3) lower for torsemide and 0.2% (95% CI: -2.5, 2.9) higher for bumetanide. In conclusion, the findings suggested that the first prescribed loop diuretic following HF hospitalization is associated with clinically important differences in morbidity in older patients receiving torsemide, bumetanide, or furosemide. These differences were consistent for the effect of all-cause mortality alone, but were not statistically significant.

Effect of Furosemide Versus Torsemide on Hospitalizations and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Loop diuretics are essential in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) who develop congestion. Furosemide is the most commonly used diuretic; however, some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown varying results associated with torsemide and furosemide in terms of hospitalizations and mortality. We performed an updated meta-analysis of currently available RCTs comparing furosemide and torsemide to see if there is any difference in clinical outcomes in patients treated with these loop diuretics. PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for RCTs comparing the outcomes in patients with HF treated with furosemide versus torsemide. The primary end points included all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, cardiovascular-related hospitalizations, and HF-related hospitalizations. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 10 RCTs with 4,127 patients (2,088 in the furosemide group and 2,039 in the torsemide group) were included in this analysis. A total of 56% of the patients were men and the mean age was 68 years. No significant difference was noted in all-cause mortality between the furosemide and torsemide groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15, p = 0.70); however, patients treated with furosemide compared with torsemide had higher risks of cardiovascular hospitalizations (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.65, p = 0.001), HF-related hospitalizations (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.24, p = 0.001), and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11, p = 0.02). In conclusion, patients with HF treated with torsemide have a reduced risk of hospitalizations compared with those treated with furosemide, without any difference in mortality. These data indicate that torsemide may be a better choice to treat patients with HF.

Clinical Outcomes With Furosemide Versus Torsemide in Patients With Heart Failure: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite potential advantages of torsemide over furosemide, <10% of the patients with heart failure (HF) are on torsemide in clinical practice. Prior studies comparing furosemide to torsemide in patients with HF have shown conflicting findings, regarding hospitalizations and mortality. We aimed to pool all the studies conducted to date and provide the most updated and comprehensive evidence, regarding the effect of furosemide vs torsemide in reducing mortality and hospitalizations in patients with HF. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus from inception till June 2023, for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing furosemide to torsemide in adult patients (>18 years) with acute or chronic HF. Data about all-cause mortality, HF-related hospitalizations and all-cause hospitalizations was extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Forest plots were created based on the random effects model. A total of 17 studies (n = 11,996 patients) were included in our analysis with a median follow-up time of 8 months. Our pooled analysis demonstrated no difference in all-cause mortality between furosemide and torsemide groups in HF patients (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.75-1.29, P = 0.89). However, torsemide was associated with a significantly lesser incidence of HF-related hospitalizations (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, P = 0.04), and all-cause hospitalizations (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98, P = 0.03), as compared to furosemide. Torsemide significantly reduces HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations as compared to furosemide, with no difference in mortality. We recommend transitioning from furosemide to torsemide in HF patients who are not attaining symptomatic control.

The Potential Role of Torsemide in Optimizing Loop Diuretic Therapy for Heart Failure Patients

Heart failure is associated with an increased frequency of hospitalization, reduced life span, and greater risk to public health, thus posing a challenge. In India, torsemide is one of the commonly used loop diuretics for decongestion in heart failure. However, this use of torsemide, including its dosing, and up/down titration, is based on practical experience. Loop diuretic therapy for heart failure patients poses several dilemmas due to the lack of robust evidence based on which treatment decisions can be made. To guide physicians on the optimal use of torsemide in heart failure patients with or without renal impairment, a panel of expert cardiologists and nephrologists from India convened to develop this expert opinion document for the use of torsemide. This expert opinion on torsemide will pave the way for optimal management with loop diuretic therapy in real-world heart failure patients.

[Acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock : An update]

Acute heart failure is a clinical syndrome resulting from elevated intracardiac filling pressures and a systemic venous congestion. In general, patients can present acutely without a history of structural cardiac disease (de novo heart failure) or with acute worsening of a pre-existing dysfunction of the right or left ventricle. The patient population is overall very inhomogeneous and as a result there is also a distinct heterogeneity with respect to the underlying cardiac pathology that leads to the acute presentation. Ultimately, ventricular dysfunction leads to increased preload and afterload resulting in decreased perfusion and retrograde congestion. The forward failure (hypoperfusion) and backwards failure (systemic congestion) can lead to impaired end organ function or even organ failure resulting in cardiogenic shock, in which sufficient organ and tissue perfusion is no longer possible. Consequently, therapeutic strategies currently focus on rectification of the underlying cardiac dysfunction, reduction of volume overload (decongestion) and hemodynamic stabilization with drugs supporting the circulation in the case of a hypoperfusion syndrome. Despite numerous new therapeutic strategies within the last two decades, the empirical data based on randomized trials is considerably less solid than in chronic heart failure, which is expressed in the almost unchanged 1‑year mortality of approximately 20-30%.

Use of short-acting vs. long-acting loop diuretics after heart failure hospitalization

AIMS

Furosemide, a short-acting loop diuretic (SD), is the dominant agent prescribed for heart failure (HF) in clinical practice. However, accumulating data suggests that long-acting loop diuretics (LD), such as torsemide or azosemide, might have more favourable pharmacological profiles. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the type of loop diuretics and long-term outcomes among patients hospitalized for acute HF enrolled in a contemporary multicentre registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Within the West Tokyo Heart Failure Registry from 2006 to 2017, a total of 2680 patients (60.1% men with a median age of 77 years) were analysed. The patients were characterized by the type of diuretics used at the time of discharge; 2073 (77.4%) used SD, and 607 (22.6%) used LD. The primary endpoint was composite of all-cause death or HF re-admission after discharge, and the secondary endpoints were all-cause death and HF re-admission, respectively. During the median follow-up period of 2.1 years, 639 patients died [n = 519 (25.0%) in the SD group; n = 120 (19.8%) in the LD group], and 868 patients were readmitted for HF [n = 697 (33.6%) in the SD group; n = 171 (28.2%) in the LD group]. After multivariable adjustment, the LD group had lower risk for the composite outcome [hazard ratio (HR), 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-0.96; P = 0.017], including all-cause death (HR; 0.73; 95% CI; 0.54-0.99; P = 0.044) and HF re-admission (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99; P = 0.038), than the SD group. Propensity score matching yielded estimates that were consistent with those of the multivariable analyses, with sub-group analyses demonstrating that use of LD was associated with favourable outcomes predominantly in younger patients with reduced ejection fraction.

CONCLUSIONS

LD was associated with lower risk of long-term outcomes in patients with HF and a recent episode of acute decompensation.

Proteomic differences among patients with heart failure taking furosemide or torsemide

BACKGROUND

Loop diuretics are commonly used for patients with heart failure (HF) but it remains unknown if one loop diuretic is clinically superior.

HYPOTHESIS

Biomarkers and proteomics provide insight to how different loop diuretics may differentially affect outcomes.

METHODS

Blood and urine were collected from outpatients with HF who were taking torsemide or furosemide for >30 days. Differences were assessed in cardiac, renal, and inflammatory biomarkers and soluble protein panels using the Olink Cardiovascular III and inflammation panels.

RESULTS

Of 78 subjects, 55 (71%) were treated with furosemide and 23 (29%) with torsemide, and 25 provided a urine sample (15 treated with furosemide, 10 with torsemide). Patients taking torsemide were older (68 vs 64 years) with a lower mean eGFR (46 vs 54 ml/min/1.73 m² ), a higher proportion were women (39% vs 24%) and Black (43% vs 27%). In plasma, levels of hs-cTnT, NT-proBNP, and hsCRP were not significantly different between groups. In urine, there were significant differences in urinary albumin, β-2M, and NGAL, with higher levels in the torsemide-treated patients. Of 184 proteins testing in Olink panels, in plasma, 156 (85%) were higher in patients taking torsemide but none were significantly different after correcting for false discovery.

CONCLUSIONS

We show differences in urinary biomarkers but few differences in plasma biomarkers among HF patients on different loop diuretics. Olink technology can detect differences in plasma protein levels from multiple biologic domains. These findings raise the importance of defining differences in mechanisms of action of each diuretic in an appropriately powered study.

Optimizing Guideline-directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction During Hospitalization

Heart failure remains a huge societal concern despite medical advancement, with an annual direct cost of over $30 billion. While guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is proven to reduce morbidity and mortality, many eligible patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are not receiving one or more of the recommended medications, often due to suboptimal initiation and titration in the outpatient setting. Hospitalization serves as a key point to initiate and titrate GDMT. Four evidence-based therapies have clinical benefit within 30 days of initiation and form a crucial foundation for HFrEF therapy: renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors with or without a neprilysin inhibitor, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor-antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The authors present a practical guide for the implementation of these four pillars of GDMT during a hospitalization for acute heart failure.

Comparative effects of furosemide and other diuretics in the treatment of heart failure: a systematic review and combined meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Diuretics have an essential role in the management of heart failure (HF). However, each drug has its own benefit and side effect. Side effects include fluid, electrolyte abnormalities, and acid-base disturbance. These adverse effects of diuretics predispose patients to serious cardiac arrhythmias and may increase the risk of arrhythmic mortality. Herein, we aim to summarize the relative efficacy and safety of all available diuretics used in the treatment of patients with HF. In June 2017, a systematic electronic database search was conducted in nine databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the different diuretics used in HF were included for meta-analysis. The protocol was registered in Prospero with CRD42018084819. Among the included 54 studies (10,740 patients), 34 RCTs were eligible for quantitative network meta-analysis (NMA) and traditional meta-analysis while the other 20 studies were qualitatively analyzed. Our results showed that azosemide and torasemide caused a significant reduction in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level. Torasemide also caused a significant decrease in collagen volume fraction (CVF) and edema. No significant difference between the agents concerning glomerular filtration rate (GFR), water extraction, and sodium excretion was demonstrated. Regarding side effects, no significant difference among diuretics was observed in terms of hospital readmission and mortality rates. Diuretics are the main treatment of hypervolemia in HF patients. The choice of appropriate diuretic is essential for successful management and is mainly guided by patient clinical situations and the presence of other co-morbidities.

Efficacy of oral torasemide in dogs with degenerative mitral valve disease and new onset congestive heart failure: The CARPODIEM study

Background

Torasemide is a potent loop diuretic with potential to treat congestive heart failure (CHF) in dogs.

Objective

Evaluate the efficacy and safety of torasemide compared to furosemide in dogs with first occurrence of CHF caused by degenerative mitral valve disease (DMVD).

Animals

Three hundred and nineteen dogs with new onset CHF attributable to DMVD.

Methods

Double‐blinded randomized noninferiority study of PO torasemide vs furosemide in addition to standard CHF treatment. The primary efficacy criterion was decreased pulmonary edema and cough and no worsening of dyspnea or exercise tolerance at day 14. Secondary endpoints included clinical response at day 84 and time to death, euthanasia, or premature study withdrawal for cardiac reasons.

Results

Torasemide q24h (n = 161) was noninferior to furosemide q12h (n = 158); percentage of dogs meeting primary efficacy criterion at day 14 was similar between groups (torasemide, 74.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 66.8%‐81.0%] vs. furosemide, 73.5% [95% CI, 65.7%‐80.4%]; risk ratio [RR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89‐1.15; P = .87). Efficacy at day 84 showed similar results (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.88‐1.25; P = .6). Dogs receiving torasemide had a longer time to endpoint and were less than half as likely to experience death, euthanasia, or premature study withdrawal (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19‐0.65; P = .001) than dogs receiving furosemide at any time during the study.

Conclusion and Clinical importance

Torasemide was noninferior to furosemide as first line PO treatment for new onset CHF caused by DMVD. Torasemide significantly decreased risk of cardiac‐related death or premature study withdrawal for cardiac reasons compared to furosemide.

Torasemide versus furosemide in treatment of heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Diuretics are a cornerstone in treatment of heart failure (HF). Torasemide is a loop diuretic with a potential advantage over other diuretics. We aim to meta-analyse and compare the effect of torasemide with furosemide in HF patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search using 12 databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing furosemide and torasemide in HF patients were included and meta-analysed. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016046112).

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs with 1598 patients were included. There was a significant difference between torasemide 20 mg and furosemide 40 mg in increasing the urine volume (standard difference of the mean (SDM) [95% confidence interval] = -0.78 [-1.52 to -0.053], P = .036). Torasemide 10 mg and 10 to 20 mg have a significant effect on potassium excretion in comparison with furosemide 25 to 40 mg (P = .018 and .023, respectively). In general, torasemide and furosemide have no significant difference in mortality, edema improvement, weight loss, heart rate, and reducing systolic/diastolic blood pressure. However, oral torasemide has a significant lower hospital stay P < .001 and superior effect in improving ejection fraction P = .029.

CONCLUSION

Although not all results are statistically significant, torasemide has potential advantages on multiple aspects of HF management when compared with furosemide. More studies are needed to clarify these effects.

READY: relative efficacy of loop diuretics in patients with chronic systolic heart failure-a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

The majority of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) receive long-term treatment with loop diuretics. The comparative effectiveness of different loop diuretics is unknown. We searched PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the European Union Clinical Trials Register for randomised clinical trials exploring the efficacy of the loop diuretics azosemide, bumetanide, furosemide or torasemide in patients with HF. Comparators included placebo, standard medical care or any other active treatment. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular mortality, HF-related hospitalisation and any combined endpoint thereof. Hypokalaemia and acute renal failure were defined as additional safety endpoints. Evidence was synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). Thirty-four trials reporting on 2647 patients were included. The overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate. NMA demonstrated no significant differences between loop diuretics with respect to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or hypokalaemia. In contrast, torasemide ranked best in terms of HF hospitalisation, and there was a trend towards benefits with torasemide with regard to occurrence of acute renal failure. Sensitivity analyses excluding trials with a follow-up < 6 months, trials with a cross-over design and those including < 25 patients confirmed the main results. We found no significant superiority of either loop diuretic with respect to mortality and safety endpoints. However, clinicians may prefer torasemide, as it was associated with fewer HF-related hospitalisations.

Diuretic Resistance in Heart Failure

Decompensated heart failure accounts for approximately 1 million hospitalizations in the United States annually, and this number is expected to increase significantly in the near future. Diuretics provide the initial management in most patients with fluid overload. However, the development of diuretic resistance remains a significant challenge in the treatment of heart failure. Due to the lack of a standard definition, the prevalence of this phenomenon remains difficult to determine, with some estimates suggesting that 25-30% of patients with heart failure have diuretic resistance. Certain characteristics, including low systolic blood pressures, renal impairment, and atherosclerotic disease, help predict the development of diuretic resistance. The underlying pathophysiology is likely multifactorial, with pharmacokinetic alterations, hormonal dysregulation, and the cardiorenal syndrome having significant roles. The therapeutic approach to this common problem typically involves increases in the diuretic dose and/or frequency, sequential nephron blockade, and mechanical fluid movement removal with ultrafiltration or peritoneal dialysis. Paracentesis is potentially useful in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I² = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I² = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I² = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I² = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Comparative effectiveness of torasemide versus furosemide in symptomatic therapy in heart failure patients: Preliminary results from the randomized TORNADO trial

BACKGROUND

Recent reports suggest that torasemide might be more beneficial than furosemide in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF). The aim was to compare the effects of torasemide and furosemide on clinical outcomes in HF patients.

METHODS

This study pilot consisted of data from the ongoing multicenter, randomized, unblinded endpoint phase IV TORNADO (NCT01942109) study. HF patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) II-IV class with a stable dose of furosemide were randomized to treatment with equipotential dose of torasemide (4:1) or continuation of unchanged dose of furosemide. On enrollment and control visit (3 months after enrollment) clinical examination, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and assessment of fluid retention by ZOE Fluid Status Monitor were performed. The primary endpoint was a composite of improvement of NYHA class, improvement of at least 50 m during 6MWT and decrease in fluid retention of at least 0.5 W after 3-months follow-up.

RESULTS

The study group included 40 patients (median age 66 years; 77.5% male). During follow-up 7 patients were hospitalized for HF worsening (3 in torasemide and 4 in furosemide-treated patients). The primary endpoint reached 15 (94%) and 14 (58%) patients on torasemide and furosemide, respectively (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In HF patients treated with torasemide fluid overload and symptoms improved more than in the furosemide group. This positive effect occurred already within 3-month observation.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Torsemide Versus Furosemide in Patients With Heart Failure

Although torsemide's oral bioavailability and half-life theoretically render it a more efficient diuretic than furosemide, the clinical outcomes of torsemide compared with furosemide remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, including all published studies that compared torsemide and furosemide use in heart failure patients from January 1996 through August 2019. Nineteen studies (9 randomized control trials [RCTs] and 10 observational studies) with a total of 19,280 patients were included. During a mean follow-up duration of 15 months, torsemide was associated with a numerically lower risk of hospitalization due to heart failure (10.6% vs 18.4%; odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.51, 1.03], p = 0.07, I² = 18%; number needed to treat [NNT] = 23) compared with furosemide. Torsemide was associated with statistically significant more improvement in functional status from New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV to I/II (72.5% vs 58%; OR 2.32, 95% CI (1.32, 4.1), p = 0.004, I² = 27%; NNT = 5) and lower risk of cardiac mortality (1.5% vs 4.4%; OR 0.37, 95% CI (0.20, 0.66), p <0.001, I² = 0%, NNT = 40) compared with furosemide. However, there was no difference in all-cause mortality or medication side effects between the 2 groups. In conclusion, compared with furosemide, torsemide use was associated with significant more improvement in functional status and lower cardiac mortality; and numerically fewer hospitalizations in patients with heart failure.

New perspectives and future directions in the treatment of heart failure

The management of heart failure has changed significantly over the last 30 years, leading to improvements in the quality of life and outcomes, at least for patients with a substantially reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). This has been made possible by the identification of various pathways leading to the development and progression of heart failure, which have been successfully targeted with effective therapies. Meanwhile, many other potential targets of treatment have been identified, and the list is constantly expanding. In this review, we summarise planned and ongoing trials exploring the potential benefit, or harm, of old and new pharmacological interventions that might offer further improvements in treatment for those with HFrEF and extend success to the treatment of patients with heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF) and other heart failure phenotypes.

Comparison between the effects of torsemide and furosemide on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system of normal dogs

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

We hypothesized that torsemide and furosemide, at approximately equipotent dosages (similar diuresis), would have comparable effects on the circulating renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

ANIMALS, MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six, healthy, middle-aged, male Beagles were randomized to receive torsemide (0.1 mg/kg PO q 12 h), furosemide (2.0 mg/kg PO q 12 h), or placebo for 10 days during three separate periods, separated by a 10-day washout period, in a crossover design. Blood was collected on days 1, 5, and 9 and 24-h urine collection ended on days 2, 6, and 10. After repeated measures analysis and Bonferonni correction, variables with an adjusted p<0.05 were investigated further, using Tukey's method.

RESULTS

Twenty-four-hour urine production differed significantly between the diuretics only on day 10, with torsemide causing a 38% greater diuresis than furosemide. There was, however, no significant difference in average 3-day diuresis. There were no significant differences between diuretics in the 24-h urinary excretion of sodium, chloride, or potassium, though furosemide caused less kaliuresis than torsemide. Serum renin, angiotensin II, and aldosterone and the urine aldosterone-to-creatinine ratio were significantly increased in the diuretic groups, as compared to placebo on days 5/6 and 9/10. There were no significant differences in these values between diuretics. Creatinine and blood urea nitrogen concentrations rose comparably in the diuretic groups, remaining within reference intervals in all dogs.

CONCLUSIONS

At approximately equipotent dosages (20:1), torsemide and furosemide produced comparable renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation. Torsemide's similar potassium excretion profile to furosemide decreases support for a hypothesized mineralocorticoid-receptor blocking capability.

Loop Diuretics-Analysis of Efficacy Data for the Perioperative Clinician

HEART FAILURE (HF) is one of the most common causes of hospitalization in the United States. Loop diuretics (LD) are the mainstay of treatment in the management of acute and chronic HF. Although they generally are effective in relieving symptoms and reducing congestion, LD have not been shown to significantly affect morbidity and mortality. The initial decongestion strategy for management of HF is likely to be an LD, with evidence suggesting that an initial "high-dose" strategy either by twice-daily bolus injection or by continuous infusion is likely to be more successful than an initial lower dose in respect to relief of symptoms but at the expense of increased worsening of renal function. This review focuses on the current state of evidence of different strategies related to the use of LD in the treatment of congestive symptoms in critically ill patients and presents a summary of the body of evidence regarding dosages, timing, and different diuretic agents.

Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes of Torasemide and Furosemide in Heart Failure Patients in Heart Failure Registries of the European Society of Cardiology

PURPOSE

Current clinical recommendations do not emphasise superiority of any of diuretics, but available reports are very encouraging and suggest beneficial effects of torasemide. This study aimed to compare the effect of torasemide and furosemide on long-term outcomes and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class change in patients with chronic heart failure (HF).

METHODS

Of 2019 patients enrolled in Polish parts of the heart failure registries of the European Society of Cardiology (Pilot and Long-Term), 1440 patients treated with a loop diuretic were included in the analysis. The main analysis was performed on matched cohorts of HF patients treated with furosemide and torasemide using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Torasemide was associated with a similar primary endpoint (all-cause death; 9.8% vs. 14.1%; p = 0.13) occurrence and 23.8% risk reduction of the secondary endpoint (a composite of all-cause death or hospitalisation for worsening HF; 26.4% vs. 34.7%; p = 0.04). Treatment with both torasemide and furosemide was associated with the significantly most frequent occurrence of the primary (23.8%) and secondary (59.2%) endpoints. In the matched cohort after 12 months, NYHA class was higher in the furosemide group (p = 0.04), while furosemide use was associated with a higher risk (20.0% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.03) of worsening ≥ 1 NYHA class. Torasemide use impacted positively upon the primary endpoint occurrence, especially in younger patients (aged < 65 years) and with dilated cardiomyopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings contribute to the body of research on the optimal diuretic choice. Torasemide may have advantageous influence on NYHA class and long-term outcomes of HF patients, especially younger patients or those with dilated cardiomyopathy, but it needs further investigations in prospective randomised trials.

Heart failure in chronic kidney disease: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

The incidence and prevalence of heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are increasing, and as such a better understanding of the interface between both conditions is imperative for developing optimal strategies for their detection, prevention, diagnosis, and management. To this end, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) convened an international, multidisciplinary Controversies Conference titled Heart Failure in CKD. Breakout group discussions included (i) HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and nondialysis CKD, (ii) HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and nondialysis CKD, (iii) HFpEF and dialysis-dependent CKD, (iv) HFrEF and dialysis-dependent CKD, and (v) HF in kidney transplant patients. The questions that formed the basis of discussions are available on the KDIGO website http://kdigo.org/conferences/heart-failure-in-ckd/, and the deliberations from the conference are summarized here.

Comparison of Long-Acting and Short-Acting Loop Diuretics in the Treatment of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

Background: Clinical evidence of the effects of loop diuretics in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is lacking. Thus, we compared the impact of azosemide and furosemide, long- and short-acting loop diuretics, in patients with HFpEF.

Methods and Results: A prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted between July 2014 and July 2018. We enrolled 301 consecutive patients with HFpEF (median age, 84 years; IQR, 79–88 years; 54.8% female). Azosemide was used in 127 patients (azosemide group), and furosemide in 174 (furosemide group). We constructed Cox models for a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and HF hospitalization (primary endpoints). During a median follow-up of 317 days (IQR, 174–734 days), the primary endpoint occurred in 112 patients (37.2%). On multivariate inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) Cox modeling, the azosemide group had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events than the furosemide group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27–0.80; P=0.006). Furthermore, on multivariate IPTW Cox modeling for the secondary endpoints, cardiac death (HR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.17–0.89; P=0.025) and unplanned hospitalization for decompensated HF (HR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28–0.89; P=0.018) were also reduced in the azosemide group.

Conclusions: Azosemide significantly reduced the risk of adverse events compared with furosemide in HFpEF patients.

Comparing torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with heart failure (HF).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar database searches for relevant articles from 1946 to May 2018 were performed with the use of the key words torsemide and furosemide.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) cohort studies or randomized controlled trials of adult patients 18 years of age or older who received oral torsemide or furosemide for HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction; and (2) studies that reported mortality rate, rehospitalization rate for HF or cardiovascular disease (CVD), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class changes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Efficacy outcomes were mortality from any cause, rehospitalization for HF, rehospitalization for CVD, and NYHA functional class improvement. Safety outcome included hypokalemia.

RESULTS

In the 5 included studies, there was no significant difference in mortality between torsemide and furosemide (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.58-1.72; P = 0.99; I² = 79%). There was no significant difference in rehospitalization rates for HF (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.09; P = 0.15; I² = 64%) or CVD (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62-1.12; P = 0.22; I² = 40%) between torsemide- and furosemide-treated patients. The use of torsemide was associated with significant improvement in NYHA functional class compared with furosemide (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.18-1.76; P = 0.0004; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis showed that torsemide is associated with statistically significant improvement in NYHA functional class for patients with HF compared with furosemide. However, torsemide did not provide significant benefits in reducing mortality or rehospitalization rates for HF or CVD compared with furosemide. The authors suggest switching from furosemide to torsemide in patients with HF not achieving symptomatic control with the use of furosemide despite maximizing guideline-directed medical therapy and furosemide dosing.

Comparative effectiveness of loop diuretics on mortality in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure - A multicenter propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Loop diuretics are given to the majority of patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Whether the different pharmacological properties of the three guideline-recommended loop diuretics result in differential effects on survival is unknown.

METHODS

6293 patients with chronic HF using either bumetanide, furosemide or torasemide were identified in three European HF registries. Patients were individually matched on both the respective propensity scores for receipt of the individual drug and dose-equivalents thereof.

RESULTS

During a follow-up of 35,038 patient-years, 652 (53.7%), 2179 (51.9%), and 268 (30.4%) patients died amongst those prescribed bumetanide, furosemide, and torasemide, respectively. In univariable analyses of the general sample, bumetanide and furosemide were both associated with higher mortality as compared with torasemide treatment (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.31-1.73, p < 0.001, and HR 1.34, CI 1.18-1.52, p < 0.001, respectively). Mortality was higher in bumetanide users when compared to furosemide users (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20, p = 0.01). However, there was no significant association between loop diuretic choice and all-cause mortality in any of the matched samples (bumetanide vs. furosemide, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14, p = 0.53; bumetanide vs. torasemide, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78-1.24, p = 0.89; furosemide vs. torasemide, HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.24, p = 0.82). The results were confirmed in subgroup analyses with respect to age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, NYHA functional class, cause of HF, rhythm, and systolic blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF, mortality is not affected by the choice of individual loop diuretics.

Practical management of concomitant acute heart failure and worsening renal function in the emergency department

Worsening renal function (i.e. any increase in creatinine or decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate) is common in patients admitted for acute heart failure in the emergency department. Although worsening renal function (WRF) has been associated with the occurrence of dismal outcomes, this only appears to be the case when associated with clinical deterioration. However, if the clinical status of the patient is improving, a certain increase in serum creatinine may be acceptable. This WRF, which is not associated with clinical deterioration or adverse outcomes (e.g. during treatment up-titration), has been referred to as 'pseudo-WRF' and should not detract clinicians from targeting 'guideline-recommended' therapies. This is an important message for emergency physicians to pursue diuretics as long as signs of pulmonary congestion persist to improve the clinical status of the patient. In the present review, we aim to provide clinicians in acute settings with an integrative and comprehensive approach to cardiorenal interactions in acute heart failure.

Rate pressure product and the components of heart rate and systolic blood pressure in hospitalized heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction: Insights from ASCEND-HF

BACKGROUND

Heart rate and systolic blood pressure (SBP) are prognostic markers in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Their combination in rate pressure product (RPP) as well as their role in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear.

HYPOTHESIS

RPP and its components are associated with HFpEF outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an analysis of Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Subjects With Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00475852), which studied 7141 patients with acute HF. HFpEF was defined as left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%. Outcomes were assessed by baseline heart rate, SBP, and RPP, as well as the change of these variables using adjusted Cox models.

RESULTS

After multivariable adjustment, in-hospital change but not baseline heart rate, SBP, and RPP were associated with 30-day mortality/HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.17 per 5-bpm heart rate, HR: 1.20 per 10-mm Hg SBP, and HR: 1.02 per 100 bpm × mm Hg RPP; all P < 0.05). Baseline SBP was associated with 180-day mortality (HR: 0.88 per 10-mm Hg, P = 0.028). Though change in RPP was associated with 30-day mortality/HF hospitalization, the RPP baseline variable did not provide additional associative information with regard to outcomes when compared with assessment of baseline heart rate and SBP variables alone.

CONCLUSIONS

An increase in heart rate and SBP from baseline to discharge was associated with increased 30-day mortality/HF hospitalization in HFpEF patients with acute exacerbation. These findings suggest value in monitoring the trend of vital signs during HFpEF hospitalization.

Negotiating renal dysfunction when treating patients with heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the most prevalent comorbidities in HF, and no specific treatment is still available for the so-called cardiorenal syndrome. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to describe the interaction of heart and kidney function and the consequences of cardiorenal syndrome, focusing on the use of available therapeutics. Expert commentary: The presence of CKD has been associated with adverse outcomes in HF regardless of ejection fraction. On the other hand, cardiovascular events are the most common causes of morbidity and mortality among CKD patients, reflecting the close pathophysiological crosstalk between these organs. Multiple mechanisms are involved in the development of cardiorenal syndrome, including hemodynamic, neurohormonal and inflammatory mediators. The management of several HF drugs is a challenge in the presence of CKD mainly due to blunted diuretic response and increased risk of worsening of kidney function. Therefore, finding a balance between the optimization of cardiac and renal outcomes is a real negotiation in the everyday clinical practice.

[Use of loop diuretics in heart failure: Current aspects]

Loop diuretics take the lead in the treatment of patients with symptomatic heart failure. Torasemide is the most effective and safe loop diuretic with the optimal pharmacokinetic profile, the additional properties associated with simultaneous blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and with the antiadrenergic effects of the drug, its positive impact on myocardial fibrosis and minimal severe potential negative effects. Sustained-release torasemide provides a more comfortable removal of excess liquid and does not deteriorate quality of life.

Advances in chemical pharmacotherapy for managing acute decompensated heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) contributes largely to the burden of heart failure and is associated with a poorer prognosis. Although numerous clinical trials evaluated the benefit of newer medications for ADHF, most of them were not successful. Areas covered: This review focusses on the updates on recent developments in chemical pharmacotherapy for the management of ADHF. A MEDLINE search for relevant review articles and original investigations on newer drugs for ADHF provided us with necessary literature. Expert opinion: Currently, popular therapies like diuretics, vasodilators, and inotropes offer symptomatic relief but do not provide survival benefit. Although multiple medications targeting novel pathways in ADHF were studied extensively, they failed to show either symptomatic or mortality benefit in available randomized trials. Improving our understanding of the complex pathophysiology of ADHF along with designing studies which include patients who are more representative of the real-world heart failure population, standardizing methods for endpoint assessment, and evaluating the role on novel biomarkers of organ dysfunction is important to improve ADHF research. Enhancing preventive strategies like improving baseline therapy in chronic heart failure patients and developing strategies for early identification of ADHF are important as our quest for innovative ADHF pharmacotherapy continues.

Publication trends in cachexia and sarcopenia in elderly heart failure patients

The loss of skeletal mass - sarcopenia and cachexia - is considered to be a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure (CHF). Unfortunately, sarcopenia is generally considered to be a geriatric syndrome, but not necessarily seen as a comorbidity in CHF, even though it has a wide range of adverse health outcomes. While there were 15,574 publication with the title word "heart failure" in PubMed in the 5‑year period from 1 June 2011 to 31 May 2016, only 22 or 71 publications were found with the search combination "sarcopenia" or "cachexia" (title word) and "heart failure" (all fields), respectively. This shows very clearly that loss of muscle quality and function due to heart failure is still an underappreciated problem in the medical field.