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

Diuretic Treatment in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence and Future Directions - Part I: Loop Diuretics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Fluid retention or congestion is a major cause of symptoms, poor quality of life, and adverse outcome in patients with heart failure (HF). Despite advances in disease-modifying therapy, the mainstay of treatment for congestion-loop diuretics-has remained largely unchanged for 50 years. In these two articles (part I: loop diuretics and part II: combination therapy), we will review the history of diuretic treatment and the current trial evidence for different diuretic strategies and explore potential future directions of research.

RECENT FINDINGS

We will assess recent trials including DOSE, TRANSFORM, ADVOR, CLOROTIC, OSPREY-AHF, and PUSH-AHF amongst others, and assess how these may influence current practice and future research. There are few data on which to base diuretic therapy in clinical practice. The most robust evidence is for high dose loop diuretic treatment over low-dose treatment for patients admitted to hospital with HF, yet this is not reflected in guidelines. There is an urgent need for more and better research on different diuretic strategies in patients with HF.

SGLT2 Inhibition in Heart Failure: Clues to Cardiac Effects?

Following the publication of several landmark clinical trials such as dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, dapagliflozin evaluation to improve the lives of patients with preserved ejection fraction heart failure, and empagliflozin outcome trial in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, sodium-glucose cotransport 2 inhibitors have been rapidly incorporated as a guideline-directed therapy in the treatment of heart failure. Moreover, their benefits appear to extend across the spectrum of left ventricular dysfunction which in some respects, can be seen as the holy grail of heart failure pharmacotherapy. Despite its plethora of proven cardioprotective benefits, the mechanisms by which it exerts these effects remain poorly understood, however, it is clear that these extend beyond that of promotion of glycosuria and natriuresis. Several hypotheses have emerged over the years including modification of cardiovascular risk profile via weight reduction, improved glucose homeostasis, blood pressure control, and natriuretic effect; however, these mechanisms do not fully explain the potent effects of the drug demonstrated in large-scale randomized trials. Other mechanisms may be at play, specifically the down-regulation of inflammatory pathways, improved myocardial sodium homeostasis, modulation of profibrotic pathways, and activation of nutrient deprivation signaling pathways promoting autophagic flux. This review seeks to summarize the cardioprotective benefits demonstrated in major clinical trials and provide a succinct review of the current theories of mechanisms of action, based on the most recent evidence derived from both clinical and laboratory data.

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.

A Narrative Review on the Efficacy and Safety of Loop Diuretics in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Preserved Ejection Fraction

To date, loop diuretics are the mainstay treatment for decongestion in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF). In clinical practice, loop diuretics have also been utilized for patients with chronic HF with reduced and preserved ejection fractions. There is a paucity of quality evidence of the effect of loop diuretics use and dosing on clinical outcomes in HF patients beyond symptomatic relief. In this review, we aimed to summarize recently published data on the use of loop diuretics in patients with HF, focusing on efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. We searched EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the "Web of Science" databases. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials published after 2018 and written in English were included in this review. Case reports, case series, cross-sectional studies, review articles, commentaries, articles published more than five years ago, and studies involving children were excluded. Results were divided into the efficacy and safety of loop diuretics in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). A registry-based study included in our review observed a reduced 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF receiving loop diuretics compared to those not receiving loop diuretics (HR=0.73; 95% CI=0.57-0.94; p=0.016), but there was no statistically significant association at the 60-day follow-up of the same group of patients. Most studies reviewed showed that the choice of loop diuretics did not influence clinical outcomes such as mortality and HF rehospitalization in patients with HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction despite differences in oral bioavailability and half-life. Studies have consistently shown that patients with HF who receive a higher dose of loop diuretics are likely to experience a decline in renal function and hypotension, regardless of their type of HF. Discontinuation or reduction of the dose of loop diuretics should be considered in patients with HF after decongestion.

Co-Administration of Drugs and Parenteral Nutrition: In Vitro Compatibility Studies of Loop Diuretics for Safer Clinical Practice

Parenteral nutrition (PN) admixtures are prone to interacting with drugs administered intravenously via a common catheter. This may cause a threat to a patient’s health and life. The literature that has been reported on the compatibility of loop diuretics with PN presents conflicting results. This work aimed to study the compatibility of furosemide and torsemide with PN used in clinical practice. Undiluted solutions of drugs were mixed with PN at various ratios determined by flow rates. In order to assess compatibility, visual control was followed by pH measurement, osmolality, mean emulsion droplet diameter (MDD), and zeta potential upon mixing and at 4 h of storage. No macroscopic changes that indicated lipid emulsion degradation were observed. After the addition of the drugs, the value of pH ranged from 6.37 ± 0.01 to 7.38 ± 0.01. The zeta potential was in reverse proportion to the drug concentration. The addition of the drugs did not affect the MDD. It may be suggested that the co-administration of furosemide or torsemide and PN caused no interaction. The absence of such signs of unwanted interactions allowed for the co-administration of the mentioned loop diuretics and PN at each of the studied ratios.

Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (PIP-HFrEF)

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic debilitating and potentially life-threatening condition. Heart Failure patients are usually at high risk of polypharmacy and consequently, potentially inappropriate prescribing leading to poor clinical outcomes. Based on the published literature, a comprehensive HF-specific prescribing review tool is compiled to avoid medications that may cause HF or harm HF patients and to optimize the prescribing practice of HF guideline-directed medical therapies. Recommendations are made in line with the last versions of ESC guidelines, ESC position papers, scientific evidence, and experts' opinions.

Outcomes of diuretics in rheumatic heart disease with compensated chronic heart failure: a retrospective study

Aims

The purpose of this retrospective propensity score‐matched study was to evaluate the superiority of different application approaches [continuous diuretics use (CDU) vs. intermittent diuretics use (IDU)] and types [loop diuretics (LDs) vs. thiazide diuretics (TDs)] of diuretics on long‐term outcomes for rheumatic heart disease (RHD) patients with compensated chronic heart failure (CHF).

Methods and results

A total of 494 RHD patients with compensated CHF were analysed after propensity score matching. Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to investigate the associations of different diuretic application approaches and types with all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular death (CVD), and cerebrovascular death. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations of different diuretic application approaches and types with 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year heart failure (HF) re‐hospitalization as well as new‐onset atrial fibrillation (AF). In the comparison between IDU and CDU strategies for RHD patients with compensated CHF, CDU was associated with increased risks of all‐cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54–3.97, P < 0.001] and CVD (adjusted HR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.95–6.89, P < 0.001) except cerebrovascular death (adjusted HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.34–3.41, P = 0.905). CDU was also associated with increased risks of 3‐year [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.09–2.96, P = 0.022] and 5‐year (adjusted OR = 2.02, 95% CI: 1.18–3.45, P = 0.010) HF re‐hospitalization risk and new‐onset AF (adjusted OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.31–4.20, P = 0.004) except 1‐year HF re‐hospitalization risk (adjusted OR = 1.54, 95% CI: 0.88–2.70, P = 0.130). In the comparison between TDs and LDs among study participants receiving IDU strategy, LDs were only associated with decreased 1‐year HF re‐hospitalization risk (adjusted OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12–0.77, P = 0.012) rather than all‐cause mortality, CVD, cerebrovascular death, 3‐ and 5‐year HF re‐hospitalization, and new‐onset AF (all adjusted P > 0.05). In the comparison between TDs and LDs among study participants receiving CDU strategy, LDs were not associated with cerebrovascular death and 1‐year HF re‐hospitalization (both adjusted P > 0.05) but with increased risks of all‐cause mortality (adjusted HR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.09–2.99, P = 0.023), CVD (adjusted HR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.04–3.44, P = 0.037), 3‐year (adjusted OR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.06–3.43, P = 0.031) and 5‐year (adjusted OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.12–4.19, P = 0.022) HF re‐hospitalization, and new‐onset AF (adjusted OR = 2.66, 95% CI: 1.25–5.68, P = 0.012).

Conclusions

Continuous diuretics use (especially LDs) was associated with increased risks of all‐cause mortality, CVD, medium‐term/long‐term HF re‐hospitalization, and new‐onset AF in RHD patients with compensated CHF.

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.

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.