Diuretic Strategies in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Narrative Review

Background

Heart failure is a common condition with considerable associated costs, morbidity, and mortality. Patients often present to hospital with dyspnea and edema. Inadequate inpatient decongestion is an important contributor to high readmission rates. There is little evidence concerning diuresis to guide clinicians in caring for patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Contemporary diuretic strategies have been defined by expert opinion and older landmark clinical trials.

Objective

To present a narrative review of contemporary recommendations, along with their underlying evidence and pharmacologic rationale, for diuretic strategies in inpatients with acute decompensated heart failure.

Data Sources

PubMed, OVID, and Embase databases were searched from inception to December 22, 2022, with the following search terms: heart failure, acute heart failure, decompensated heart failure, furosemide, bumetanide, ethacrynic acid, hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, metolazone, chlorthalidone, spironolactone, eplerenone, and acetazolamide.

Study Selection

Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews involving at least 100 adult patients (> 18 years) were included. Trials involving torsemide, chlorothiazide, and tolvaptan were excluded.

Data Synthesis

Early, aggressive administration of a loop diuretic has been associated with expedited symptom resolution, shorter length of stay, and possibly reduced mortality. Guidelines make recommendations about dose and frequency but do not recommend any particular loop diuretic over another; however, furosemide is most commonly used. Guidelines recommend that the initial furosemide dose (on admission) be 2-2.5 times the patient's home dose. A satisfactory diuretic response can be defined as spot urine sodium content greater than 50-70 mmol/L at 2 hours; urine output greater than 100-150 mL/h in the first 6 hours or 3-5 L in 24 hours; or a change in weight of 0.5-1.5 kg in 24 hours. If congestion persists after the maximization of loop diuretic therapy over the first 24-48 hours, an adjunctive diuretic such as thiazide or acetazolamide should be added. If decongestion targets are not met, continuous infusion of furosemide may be considered.

Conclusions

Heart failure with congestion can be managed with careful administration of high-dose loop diuretics, supported by thiazides and acetazolamide when necessary. Clinical trials are underway to further evaluate this strategy.

Combination Diuretic Therapy With Thiazides: A Systematic Review on the Beneficial Approach to Overcome Refractory Fluid Overload in Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is a notable public health issue, and intravenous loop diuretics are frequently employed to address acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and alleviate symptoms of congestion. However, prolonged use of loop diuretics can lead to drug resistance, and some patients experience refractory volume overload that does not respond to treatment. Sequential nephron blockade, which involves combining loop and thiazide diuretics, has been proposed as a strategy to overcome diuretic resistance and improve fluid overload management. This systematic review aims to critically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this combination diuretic therapy. Following the directives detailed in the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted. Eligibility criteria were established to select relevant studies, including the requirement for studies to be conducted on human subjects and published as free full-text papers in English within the last 10 years. Several databases were searched using a combination of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) phrases and keywords related to heart failure, loop diuretics, and thiazide diuretics. The search yielded 948 references, and after screening titles, abstracts, and full-text papers, eight final studies (five observational studies and three randomized control trials) were included in the review. Based on the findings of this systematic review, there is substantial evidence to endorse the efficacy of combination diuretic therapy of loop and thiazide diuretics in augmenting diuresis and enhancing outcomes for patients who exhibit insufficient responses to single-agent diuretics. Additionally, the review provides valuable insights about the timing and type of diuretics to use, helping clinicians make informed therapeutic decisions. However, to ensure patient safety and well-being, it is imperative to take into account the potential for electrolyte disturbances and impacts on renal function, necessitating diligent and vigilant monitoring as well as effective management strategies. In light of these findings, further research is warranted to optimize the dosing regimens and to delve deeper into the long-term safety and efficacy of combination therapy. Such research endeavors will undoubtedly contribute to refining treatment approaches and advancing patient care in the field of HF management.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Metolazone Compared to Chlorothiazide for Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Treatment of volume overload in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is typically achieved through the use of loop diuretics. While they are highly effective, some patients may develop loop diuretic resistance. One strategy to overcome this scenario includes sequential nephron blockade with a thiazide-type diuretic; however, it is unknown which thiazide-type diuretic used in this setting is most effective. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the efficacy and safety of chlorothiazide with metolazone as add-on therapy in the setting of loop diuretic resistance for the treatment of ADHF. Literature searches were conducted through PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct from inception through February 2020 using the following search terms alone or in combination: metolazone, chlorothiazide, acute decompensated heart failure, loop diuretic, and urine output. All English-language prospective and retrospective trials and abstracts comparing metolazone to chlorothiazide for the treatment of ADHF were evaluated. Studies were included if they analyzed urine output for at least 24 hours in patients with ADHF. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate pooled effect size by using a random-effect model. Primary outcomes included net and total urine output. Secondary outcomes included commonly reported safety outcomes. Four studies comparing the use of metolazone to chlorothiazide as an adjunct to loop diuretics to treat ADHF were included in the evaluation. Metolazone was as effective as chlorothiazide to augment loop diuretic therapy in ADHF in most studies with no pooled difference in net or total urine output. However, there were notable differences in baseline loop diuretic dosing, ejection fraction, renal function, race, and endpoint timing across studies. Adverse effects were commonly observed and included electrolyte abnormalities, change in renal function, and hypotension but were comparable between groups. Metolazone is as effective as chlorothiazide as add-on to loop diuretics in treating ADHF without an increase in safety concerns.

Outcomes Associated With a Strategy of Adjuvant Metolazone or High-Dose Loop Diuretics in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Propensity Analysis

Background

In acute decompensated heart failure, guidelines recommend increasing loop diuretic dose or adding a thiazide diuretic when diuresis is inadequate. We set out to determine the adverse events associated with a diuretic strategy relying on metolazone or high‐dose loop diuretics.

Methods and Results

Patients admitted to 3 hospitals using a common electronic medical record with a heart failure discharge diagnosis who received intravenous loop diuretics were studied in a propensity‐adjusted analysis of all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/L), hypokalemia (potassium <3.5 mEq/L) and worsening renal function (a ≥20% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate). Of 13 898 admissions, 1048 (7.5%) used adjuvant metolazone. Metolazone was strongly associated with hyponatremia, hypokalemia, and worsening renal function (P<0.0001 for all) with minimal effect attenuation following covariate and propensity adjustment. Metolazone remained associated with increased mortality after multivariate and propensity adjustment (hazard ratio=1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.04–1.39, P=0.01). High‐dose loop diuretics were associated with hypokalemia and hyponatremia (P<0.002) but only worsening renal function retained significance (P<0.001) after propensity adjustment. High‐dose loop diuretics were not associated with reduced survival after multivariate and propensity adjustment (hazard ratio=0.97 per 100 mg of IV furosemide, 95% confidence interval 0.90–1.06, P=0.52).

Conclusions

During acute decompensated heart failure, metolazone was independently associated with hypokalemia, hyponatremia, worsening renal function and increased mortality after controlling for the propensity to receive metolazone and baseline characteristics. However, under the same experimental conditions, high‐dose loop diuretics were not associated with hypokalemia, hyponatremia, or reduced survival. The current findings suggest that until randomized control trial data prove otherwise, uptitration of loop diuretics may be a preferred strategy over routine early addition of thiazide type diuretics when diuresis is inadequate.

Oral Metolazone Versus Intravenous Chlorothiazide as an Adjunct to Loop Diuretics for Diuresis in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background: Thiazide diuretics are often utilized to overcome loop diuretic resistance when treating acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). In addition to a large cost advantage, several pharmacokinetic advantages exist when administering oral metolazone (MTZ) compared with intravenous (IV) chlorothiazide (CTZ), yet many providers are reluctant to utilize an oral formulation to treat ADHF. The purpose of this study was to compare the increase in 24-hour total urine output (UOP) after adding MTZ or CTZ to IV loop diuretics (LD) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and Results: From September 2013 to August 2016, 1002 patients admitted for ADHF received either MTZ or CTZ in addition to LD. Patients were excluded for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n = 469), <24-hour LD or UOP data prior to drug initiation (n = 129), or low dose MTZ/CTZ (n = 91). A total of 168 patients were included with 64% receiving CTZ. No significant difference was observed between the increase in 24-hour total UOP after MTZ or CTZ initiation (1458 [514, 2401] mL vs 1820 [890, 2750] mL, P = .251). Conclusions: Both MTZ and CTZ similarly increased UOP when utilized as an adjunct to IV LD. These results suggest that while thiazide agents can substantially increase UOP in ADHF patients with HFrEF, MTZ and CTZ have comparable effects.

Simultaneous determination of metolazone and valsartan in plasma by on-line SPE coupled with liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry

Combination of metolazone (0.5 mg) and valsartan (80 mg) has been verified as a promising therapy treatment for hypertension. In order to facilitate to pharmacokinetic research, it needs a method for the simultaneously determination of metolazone and valsartan in biological samples. However, there are no relative reports so far. In order to facilitate to pharmacokinetic research, an on-line solid phase extraction coupled with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for the simultaneous determination of metolazone and valsartan in beagle dog plasma was developed and validated in this study. An on-line solid phase extraction column Retain PEP Javelin (10 mm × 2.1 mm) was used to remove impurities in plasma samples. The metolazone, valsartan and internal standard (losartan) were separated on a Poroshell 120 SB-C18 column (4.6 mm × 50 mm × 2.7 µm) with a gradient elution procedure. Acidified acetonitrile/water mixture was used as a mobile phase. The selected multiple-reaction monitoring mode in positive ion was performed and the parent to the product transitions m/z 366/259, m/z 436.2/291 and m/z 423.4/207 were used to measure the metolazone, valsartan and losartan. The method was linear over the range of 0.1-100 ng/mL and 1-1000 ng/mL for metolazone and valsartan, respectively. This method was validated in terms of specificity, linearity, sensitivity, precision, accuracy, matrix effect, and stability and then successfully applied to pharmacokinetic studies of the metolazone and valsartan combination tablets in beagle dogs.

Intravenous Chlorothiazide Versus Enteral Metolazone to Augment Loop Diuretic Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

In cases of loop diuretic resistance in the intensive care unit (ICU), recommendations for a specific second-line thiazide agent are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of intravenous chlorothiazide (CTZ) and enteral metolazone (MET) on urine output (UOP) when added to furosemide monotherapy therapy in critically ill adults.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in the medical, surgical, and cardiothoracic ICUs of a quaternary medical center. The primary outcome was change in UOP induced by the study interventions compared with furosemide alone. Secondary outcomes included onset of diuresis, eventual need for hemodialysis, and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients (58 in CTZ, 64 in MET) were included. When added to furosemide monotherapy, CTZ induced a greater change in UOP at 24 hours compared with MET (2405 vs 1646 mL, respectively; P = 0.01). CTZ also caused a more rapid dieresis: 1463 mL total UOP in the first 6 hours compared with 796 mL in the MET group ( P < 0.01). There were no differences found regarding ICU length of stay, need for renal replacement therapy, or survival to discharge. The CTZ arm required more potassium supplementation to maintain normokalemia (median 100 vs 57 mEq in MET; P = 0.02) and carried a higher cost (mean $97 vs $8, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Both CTZ and MET induced significant increases in UOP. CTZ induced a greater and more rapid change and was associated with higher cost and greater need for potassium replacement. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish whether a preferable thiazide diuretic exists in this setting.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Chlorothiazide versus Oral Metolazone in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Loop Diuretic Resistance

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) chlorothiazide versus oral metolazone when added to loop diuretics in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and loop diuretic resistance.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large urban academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Adults admitted with ADHF between 2005 and 2015 who had loop diuretic resistance, defined as administration of IV furosemide at a dose of 160 mg/day or higher (or an equivalent dose of IV bumetanide), during hospitalization, and who then received at least one dose of IV chlorothiazide (88 patients) or oral metolazone (89 patients) to augment diuresis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary efficacy end point was a change in 24-hour net urine output (UOP) from before to after thiazide-type diuretic administration, and the study was designed to test for the noninferiority of metolazone. Safety end points included changes in renal function and electrolyte concentrations. The mean dose of IV loop diuretic therapy (in IV furosemide equivalents) at baseline (before thiazide-type diuretic administration) was higher in the chlorothiazide group (mean ± SD 318.9 ± 127.7 vs 268.4 ± 97.6 mg/day in the metolazone group, p=0.004), but net UOP was similar (mean ± SD 877.0 ± 1189.0 ml in the chlorothiazide group vs 710.6 ± 1145.9 ml in the metolazone group, p=0.344). Mean doses of chlorothiazide and metolazone were 491 ± 282 mg and 5.8 ± 3.5 mg, respectively. Following thiazide-type diuretic administration, net UOP improved to a similar degree (2274.6 ± 1443.0 ml vs 2030.2 ± 1725.0 ml in the chlorothiazide and metolazone groups, respectively, p=0.308). For the primary efficacy end point, metolazone met the threshold for noninferiority by producing a net UOP of 1319.6 ± 1517.4 ml versus 1397.6 ± 1370.7 ml for chlorothiazide (p=0.026 for noninferiority). No significant differences in renal function were observed between the groups. Although hypokalemia was more frequent in the chlorothiazide group (75% with chlorothiazide vs 60.7% with metolazone, p=0.045), no significant differences in the rates of severe hypokalemia or other electrolyte abnormalities were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Oral metolazone was noninferior to IV chlorothiazide for enhancing net UOP in patients with ADHF and loop diuretic resistance and was similarly safe with regard to renal function and electrolyte abnormalities. Given the significant cost disparity between the two agents, these findings suggest that oral metolazone may be considered a first-line option in this patient population.

Comparison of bumetanide- and metolazone-based diuretic regimens to furosemide in acute heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Limited data exist comparing the efficacy and safety of bumetanide- or metolazone-based diuretic regimens to furosemide in acute heart failure (HF). Our purpose was to evaluate the comparative effect on urine output (UO) and renal function between these regimens.

METHODS

A retrospective study of hospitalized HF patients treated with continuous infusion furosemide (CIF), combination furosemide plus metolazone (F + M), or continuous infusion bumetanide (CIB). Primary end points were between regimen comparisons for change in mean hourly UO versus baseline and incidence of worsening renal function.

RESULTS

Data on 242 patients with acute HF (age 58 ± 12 years, 63% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 38% ± 17%) were analyzed (160 CIF, 42 F + M, 40 CIB). The mean duration of diuretic regimens was 41 ± 32 hours. Compared to baseline, all regimens increased mean hourly UO (P < .0001 for all), with greater increases with F + M (109 ± 171 mL) and CIB (90 ± 90 mL) compared to CIF (48 ± 103 mL; P = .009). Incidence of worsening renal function was not different between regimens; however, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) tended to increase more with F + M (4.4 ± 9.8 mg/dL) and CIB (4.3 ± 9.7 mg/dL) than CIF (1.8 ± 10.8 mg/dL), P = .09. The incidence of hyponatremia was higher with F + M and CIB. Differences in UO, BUN, and hyponatremia were retained in the subgroup analysis limited to patients with baseline serum creatinine <1.5 mg/dL, where renal function between the groups was not different.

CONCLUSION

Compared to CIF, F + M or CIB was associated with greater increases in UO. No difference in the incidence of worsening renal function was found; however, electrolyte abnormalities may be more prevalent when furosemide is combined with metolazone or when bumetanide is used. These therapeutic differences warrant prospective study.