Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF).

Objectives

To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF.

Design, Setting, and Participants

All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023.

Exposure

Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS).

Results

Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Smoking abstinence 1 year after acute coronary syndrome: follow-up from a randomized controlled trial of varenicline in patients admitted to hospital

BACKGROUND

Patients who continue to smoke after acute coronary syndrome are at increased risk of reinfarction and death. We previously found use of varenicline to increase abstinence 24 weeks after acute coronary syndrome; here we report results through 52 weeks.

METHODS

The EVITA trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive varenicline or placebo for 12 weeks, in conjunction with low-intensity counselling. Smoking abstinence was assessed via 7-day recall, with biochemical validation using exhaled carbon monoxide. Participants lost to follow-up or withdrawn were assumed to have returned to smoking.

RESULTS

Among the 302 participants, abstinence declined over the course of the trial, with 34.4% abstinent 52 weeks after acute coronary syndrome. Compared with placebo, point estimates suggest use of varenicline increased point-prevalence abstinence (39.9% v. 29.1%, difference 10.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01% to 21.44%; number needed to treat 10), continuous abstinence (31.1% v. 21.2%, difference 9.9%, 95% CI -0.01% to 19.8%) and reduction in daily cigarette smoking by 50% or greater (57.8% v. 49.7%, difference 8.1%, 95% CI -3.1% to 19.4%). Varenicline and placebo groups had similar occurrence of serious adverse events (24.5% v. 21.9%, risk difference 2.7%, 95% CI -7.3% to 12.6%) and major adverse cardiovascular events (8.6% v. 9.3%, risk difference -0.7%, 95% CI -7.8% to 6.5%).

INTERPRETATION

Varenicline was efficacious for smoking cessation in this high-risk patient population. However, 60% of patients who received treatment with varenicline still returned to smoking. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00794573.

Smokers and Postcessation Weight Gain After Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background

Smoking cessation and weight management are recommended after acute coronary syndrome (ACS); however, little is known about the effects of smoking cessation on weight change after ACS. We aimed to assess the effect of smoking cessation after ACS on weight over a 12‐month follow‐up period.

Methods and Results

Data were prospectively collected from the EVITA (Evaluation of Varenicline in Smoking Cessation for Patients Post‐Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial. Weight change was compared among 3 groups of patients: those who were completely abstinent (n=70), those who smoked intermittently (n=68), and those who smoked persistently (n=34). Patients' mean baseline weight was 83.9 kg (SD 17.7) with a mean body mass index of 28.5 (SD 5.4). Patients smoked a mean of 37.7 years (SD 17.7) and a mean of 21.0 cigarettes (SD 9.0) per day prior to their ACS. Weight change varied across groups, with abstainers gaining a mean of 4.8 kg (SD 8.6), intermittent smokers gaining a mean of 2.0 kg (SD 8.9) and persistent smokers losing a mean of 0.7 kg (SD 7.4). At 52 weeks, abstainers were more likely to gain weight than persistent smokers (difference in means 5.5 kg; 95% CI 2.3–8.8). This weight gain was not associated with an increase in the use of antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications.

Conclusions

Following an ACS, significant weight is gained by patients who quit smoking. Weight‐management interventions among smokers who quit after ACS should be a focus of investigation in future research so that the cardiovascular benefits achieved by smoking cessation are not offset by weight gain in this high‐risk population.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00794573.

Varenicline for Smoking Cessation in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background—

Less than one-third of smokers hospitalized with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain abstinent following discharge. We assessed whether varenicline, begun in-hospital, is efficacious for smoking cessation following ACS.

Methods and Results—

We conducted a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which smokers hospitalized with an ACS were randomized to varenicline or placebo for 12 weeks. All patients received low-intensity counseling. The primary end point was point-prevalence smoking abstinence assessed at 24 weeks by 7-day recall and biochemical validation using expired carbon monoxide. A total of 302 patients were randomized (mean age 55±9 years; 75% male; 56% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 38% non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 6% unstable angina). Patients smoked a mean of 21±11 cigarettes/d at the time of hospitalization and had been smoking for a mean of 36±12 years. At 24 weeks, patients randomized to varenicline had significantly higher rates of smoking abstinence and reduction than patients randomized to placebo. Point-prevalence abstinence rates were 47.3% in the varenicline group and 32.5% in the placebo group ( P =0.012; number needed to treat=6.8). Continuous abstinence rates were 35.8% and 25.8%, respectively ( P =0.081; number needed to treat=10.0), and rates of reduction ≥50% in daily cigarette consumption were 67.4% and 55.6%, respectively ( P =0.05; number needed to treat=8.5). Adverse event rates within 30 days of study drug discontinuation were similar between groups (serious adverse events: varenicline 11.9%, placebo 11.3%; major adverse cardiovascular events: varenicline 4.0%, placebo 4.6%).

Conclusions—

Varenicline, initiated in-hospital following ACS, is efficacious for smoking cessation. Future studies are needed to establish safety in these patients.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00794573.

Comparison of the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure receiving dobutamine versus nesiritide therapy

Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and may be exacerbated by positive inotropic therapy. Because human B-type natriuretic peptide (nesiritide), an arterial and venodilator, inhibits sympathetic activity, it may decrease the incidence of arrhythmias. Our investigation compares the arrhythmogenicity of dobutamine with nesiritide. A total of 305 patients with decompensated CHF requiring intravenous vasoactive therapy were randomized to receive standard therapy (n = 102) or nesiritide (0.015 microg/kg/min [n = 103] or 0.030 microg/kg/min [n = 100]) to gain additional data on the relative safety and efficacy of nesiritide compared with standard parenteral care. Dobutamine was chosen as the standard care agent in 58 subjects. During study drug infusion, all patients had continuous clinical hemodynamic and electrocardiographic monitoring. The dobutamine and nesiritide groups were similar with respect to baseline use of antiarrhythmic agents, including beta blockers. Serious arrhythmias and the incidence of cardiac arrest were more common in patients who received dobutamine than in those taking nesiritide: sustained ventricular tachycardia, 4 (7%) versus 2 (1%), respectively (p = 0.014); nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, 10 (17%) versus 23 (11%), respectively (p = 0.029); cardiac arrest, 3 (5%) versus 0, respectively (p = 0.011). We conclude that among patients with decompensated CHF for whom dobutamine is selected as standard therapy, the incidence of serious ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest is significantly greater than the incidence of these events in patients randomized to nesiritide.