Ambulatory intravenous furosemide for decompensated heart failure: safe, feasible, and effective

Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for acute heart failure

BACKGROUND

Acute heart failure (AHF) is new onset of, or a sudden worsening of, chronic heart failure characterised by congestion in about 95% of cases or end-organ hypoperfusion in 5% of cases. Treatment often requires urgent escalation of diuretic therapy, mainly through hospitalisation. This Cochrane review evaluated the efficacy of intravenous loop diuretics strategies in treating AHF in individuals with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification III or IV and fluid overload.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intravenous continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for the initial treatment of acute heart failure in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through systematic searches of bibliographic databases and in clinical trials registers including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CPCI-S on the Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), and the European Union Trials register. We conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was performed on 29 February 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with AHF, NYHA classification III or IV, regardless of aetiology or ejection fraction, where trials compared intravenous continuous infusion of loop diuretics with intermittent bolus injection in AHF. We excluded trials with chronic stable heart failure, cardiogenic shock, renal artery stenosis, or end-stage renal disease. Additionally, we excluded studies combining loop diuretics with hypertonic saline, inotropes, vasoactive medications, or renal replacement therapy and trials where diuretic dosing was protocol-driven to achieve a target urine output, due to confounding factors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened papers for inclusion and reviewed full-texts. Outcomes included weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission following discharge, and occurrence of acute kidney injury. We performed risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis where data permitted and assessed certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven RCTs, spanning 32 hospitals in seven countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Data collection ranged from eight months to six years. Following exclusion of participants in subgroups with confounding treatments and different clinical settings, 681 participants were eligible for review. These additional study characteristics, coupled with our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, improve the applicability of the body of the evidence as they reflect real-world clinical practice. Meta-analysis was feasible for net weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission, and acute kidney injury. Literature review and narrative analysis explored daily fluid balance; cardiovascular mortality; B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) change; N-terminal-proBNP change; and adverse incidents such as ototoxicity, hypotension, and electrolyte imbalances. Risk of bias assessment revealed two studies with low overall risk, four with some concerns, and one with high risk. All sensitivity analyses excluded trials at high risk of bias. Only narrative analysis was conducted for 'daily fluid balance' due to diverse data presentation methods across two studies (169 participants, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect). Results of narrative analysis varied. For instance, one study reported higher daily fluid balance within the first 24 hours in the continuous infusion group compared to the bolus injection group, whereas there was no difference in fluid balance beyond this time point. Continuous intravenous infusion of loop diuretics may result in mean net weight loss of 0.86 kg more than bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.86 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.28; 5 trials, 497 participants; P < 0.001, I2 = 21%; very low-certainty evidence). Importantly, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high risk of bias showed there was insufficient evidence for a difference in bodyweight loss between groups (MD 0.70 kg, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.46; 3 trials, 378 participants; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality between continuous infusion and bolus injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.90; 5 trials, 530 participants; P = 0.19, I2 = 4%; low-certainty evidence). Despite sensitivity analysis, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. No trials measured cardiovascular mortality. There may be little to no difference in the length of hospital stay between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -4.84 to 2.64; 4 trials, 211 participants; P = 0.57, I2 = 88%; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis improved heterogeneity; however, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. There may be little to no difference in the readmission to hospital between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 3 trials, 400 participants; P = 0.31, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show insufficient evidence for a difference in the readmission to hospital between groups. There may be little to no difference in the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse event between continuous infusion and bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.49; 3 trials, 491 participants; P = 0.92, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show that continuous infusion may make little to no difference on the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse events compared to the bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of available data comparing two delivery methods of diuretics in acute heart failure found that the current data are insufficient to show superiority of one strategy intervention over the other. Our findings were based on trials meeting stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure validity. Despite previous reviews suggesting advantages of continuous infusion over bolus injections, our review found insufficient evidence to support or refute this. However, our review, which excluded trials with clinical confounders and RCTs with high risk of bias, offers the most robust conclusion to date.

Outpatient intravenous diuresis in a rural setting: safety, efficacy, and outcomes

Purpose

To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of outpatient intravenous diuresis in a rural setting and compare it to urban outcomes.

Methods

A single-center study was conducted on 60 patients (131 visits) at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) from 1/2021-12/2022. Demographics, visit data, and outcomes were collected and compared to urban outpatient IV centers, and inpatient HF hospitalizations from DHMC FY21 and national means. Descriptive statistics, T-tests and chi-squares were used.

Results

The mean age was 70 ± 13 years, 58% were male, and 83% were NYHA III-IV. Post-diuresis, 5% had mild-moderate hypokalemia, 16% had mild worsening of renal function, and 3% had severe worsening of renal function. No hospitalizations occurred due to adverse events. The mean infusion-visit urine output was 761 ± 521 ml, and post-visit weight loss was -3.9 ± 5.0 kg. No significant differences were observed between HFpEF and HFrEF groups. 30-day readmissions were similar to urban outpatient IV centers, DHMC FY21, and the national mean (23.3% vs. 23.5% vs. 22.2% vs. 22.6%, respectively; p = 0.949). 30-day mortality was similar to urban outpatient IV centers but lower than DHMC FY21 and the national means (1.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 12.3% vs. 10.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 60 days, 42% of patients had ≥1 clinic revisit, 41% had ≥1 infusion revisit, 33% were readmitted to the hospital, and two deaths occurred. The clinic avoided 21 hospitalizations, resulting in estimated cost savings of $426,111.

Conclusion

OP IV diuresis appears safe and effective for rural HF patients, potentially decreasing mortality rates and healthcare expenses while mitigating rural-urban disparities.

Clinical Pathways Guided by Remotely Monitoring Cardiac Device Data: The Future of Device Heart Failure Management?

Research examining the utility of cardiac device data to manage patients with heart failure (HF) is rapidly evolving. COVID-19 has reignited interest in remote monitoring, with manufacturers each developing and testing new ways to detect acute HF episodes, risk stratify patients and support self-care. As standalone diagnostic tools, individual physiological metrics and algorithm-based systems have demonstrated utility in predicting future events, but the integration of remote monitoring data with existing clinical care pathways for device HF patients is not well described. This narrative review provides an overview of device-based HF diagnostics available to care providers in the UK, and describes the current state of play with regard to how these systems fit in with current HF management.

Practical outpatient management of worsening chronic heart failure

Management of worsening heart failure (WHF) has traditionally been hospital‐based, but with the rising burden of heart failure (HF), the pressure on healthcare systems exerted by this disease necessitates a different strategy than long (and costly) hospital stays. A strategy for outpatient intravenous (IV) diuretic treatment of WHF has been developed in certain American centres in the past 10 years, whereas European centres have been mostly favouring ‘classic’ in‐hospital management of WHF. Embracing novel, outpatient approaches for treating WHF could substantially reduce the burden on healthcare systems while improving patient's satisfaction and quality of life. The present article is intended to provide essential knowledge and practical guidelines aimed at helping clinicians implement these new ambulatory approaches using day hospital and/or at‐home hospitalization. The topics addressed by our group of HF experts include the pathophysiological background of diuretic therapy, the most suitable profile of WHF that may be managed in an ambulatory setting, the pharmacological protocols that can be used, as well as a detailed description of healthcare structures that can be proposed to deliver these ambulatory care interventions. The practical aspects of day hospital and hospital‐at‐home IV diuretic administration are specifically emphasized. The algorithm provided along with the practical IV diuretic protocols should assist HF clinicians in implementing this new approach in their local clinical setting.