Furosemide Prescription During the Dry State Is a Predictor of Long-Term Survival of Stable, Optimally Medicated Patients With Systolic Heart Failure

Impact of Loop Diuretic on Outcomes in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Loop diuretics are the cornerstone of the treatment of congestion in heart failure patients. The manuscript aims to summarize the most updated information regarding the use of loop diuretics in heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Diuretic response can be highly variable between patients and needs to be carefully evaluated during and after the hospitalization. Diuretic resistance can lead to residual congestion which affects prognosis and can be difficult to detect. The effect of loop diuretics on long-term prognosis remains uncertain but patients with advanced heart failure typically have renal dysfunction and are more inclined to develop loop diuretic resistance, which may lead to an incomplete decongestion and thus to a worse prognosis. Loop diuretics are the most potent diuretics available and their use is recommended in order to alleviate symptoms, improve exercise capacity, and reduce hospitalizations in patients with heart failure. Their use should be limited to the lowest dose necessary to maintain euvolemia because a low dose does not increase the risk of decompensation but reduce the risk of adverse effects and allow the up-titration of disease-modifying drugs.

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.

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.