Comparative effectiveness of torsemide versus furosemide in heart failure patients: insights from the PROTECT trial

Reprint of: Effect of pregabalin initiation on diuretic requirements in patients with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Literature on pregabalin use in patients with heart failure is largely limited to patient case reports and cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of pregabalin initiation on diuretic requirements in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with heart failure who were started on pregabalin between January 1, 2014, and September 1, 2021, at the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System was used. The primary objective was to determine the median change in loop diuretic dose, in furosemide dose equivalents, 6 months after pregabalin initiation.

RESULTS

Of 58 patients analyzed, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome (P = 0.162). The secondary outcomes were found to be nonstatistically significant, and there was no correlation between pregabalin dose and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This represents the largest analysis of diuretic dose requirements in patients with heart failure after initiation of pregabalin. Although there was no difference in the median change of diuretic dose prescribed, pregabalin should still be used with caution.

Effect of pregabalin initiation on diuretic requirements in patients with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Literature on pregabalin use in patients with heart failure is largely limited to patient case reports and cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of pregabalin initiation on diuretic requirements in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with heart failure who were started on pregabalin between January 1, 2014, and September 1, 2021, at the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System was used. The primary objective was to determine the median change in loop diuretic dose, in furosemide dose equivalents, 6 months after pregabalin initiation.

RESULTS

Of 58 patients analyzed, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome (P = 0.162). The secondary outcomes were found to be nonstatistically significant, and there was no correlation between pregabalin dose and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This represents the largest analysis of diuretic dose requirements in patients with heart failure after initiation of pregabalin. Although there was no difference in the median change of diuretic dose prescribed, pregabalin should still be used with caution.

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.

[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%.

Clinical predictors of hyponatremia in patients with heart failure according to severity of chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Hyponatremia, a marker of illness severity and poor prognosis, is commonly exhibited in patients with CKD.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included patients hospitalized due to heart failure (HF). We used stepwise logistic regression to investigate the independent association of cardiovascular drugs, markers of HF severity, and baseline clinical characteristics with hyponatremia in three subgroups; normal renal function, mild-to-moderate CKD, and severe CKD.

RESULTS

Of the 1232 patients, 38.6% were hyponatremic. Patients with severe CKD, compared to those with normal renal function and mild-to-moderate CKD, were more likely to be hyponatremic (47.1%, 34.4% and 36.6%, respectively; p ≤ 0.0001). Alcohol consumption, female sex, n-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), hydrochlorothiazide (HCT), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use, or angiotensin II receptor I blocker (ARB) non-use were associated with hyponatremia in patients with normal renal function (p ≤ 0.03 in all cases). Current smoking, diabetes mellitus, NT-proBNP, loop diuretic dose, and MRA use were predictors in mild-to-moderate CKD (p ≤ 0.04 in all cases). ARB use, loop diuretic dose, and HCT use were predictors in severe CKD (p ≤ 0.03 in all cases). Non-use of dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) was an independent predictor of hyponatremia in all CKD stages (p ≤ 0.04 in all cases).

CONCLUSION

Apart from a firm favorable effect of CCBs, cardiovascular therapy should be carefully tailored to avoid hyponatremia in patients with cardiorenal syndrome.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.