Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups. METHODS: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. RESULTS: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure with volume overload: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration decreases total body water and improves the alveolar to arterial oxygen gradient. The aims of the study were to investigate the efficacy and safety of early ultrafiltration in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients. METHODS: 100 patients with ADHF within 24 h of admission were randomly assigned into early ultrafiltration (n = 40) or torasemide plus tolvaptan (n = 60) groups. The primary outcomes were weight loss and an increase in urine output on days 4 and 8 of treatment. RESULTS: Patients who received early ultrafiltration for 3 days achieved a greater weight loss (kg) (- 2.94 ± 3.76 vs - 0.64 ± 0.91, P < 0.001) and urine increase (mL) (198.00 ± 170.70 vs 61.77 ± 4.67, P < 0.001) than the torasemide plus tolvaptan group on day 4. From days 4 to 7, patients in the early ultrafiltration group received sequential therapy of torasemide and tolvaptan. Better control of volume was reflected in a greater weight loss (- 3.72 ± 3.81 vs - 1.34 ± 1.32, P < 0.001) and urine increase (373.80 ± 120.90 vs 79.5 ± 52.35, P < 0.001), greater reduction of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (pg/mL) (- 1144 ± 1435 vs - 654.02 ± 889.65, P = 0.037), NYHA (New York Heart Association) functional class (- 1.45 ± 0.50 vs - 1.17 ± 0.62, P = 0.018), jugular venous pulse (JVP) score (points) (- 1.9 ± 1.13 vs - 0.78 ± 0.69, P < 0.001), inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter (mm) (- 15.35 ± 11.03 vs - 4.98 ± 6.00, P < 0.001) and an increase in the dyspnea score (points) (4.08 ± 3.44 vs 2.77 ± 2.03, P = 0.035) in the early ultrafiltration group on day 8. No significant differences were found in the readmission and mortality rates in the 2 patient groups at the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups. Both groups had a similar stable renal profile. CONCLUSION: Early ultrafiltration is superior to diuretics for volume overload treatment initiation of ADHF patients. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000030696, Registered 10 March 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=29099 .

Tolerance of torasemide in cats with congestive heart failure: a retrospective study on 21 cases (2016-2019).

BACKGROUND: In dogs with congestive heart failure (CHF), the efficacy of torasemide, a loop diuretic, has been demonstrated. However, unlike in dogs and humans little has been described about the use of torasemide in the cat with spontaneous CHF. The objectives of this retrospective study were therefore to describe the therapeutic use of oral torasemide in cats with spontaneous CHF, document its potential adverse effects while reporting the clinical course of this feline population following torasemide administration in addition to standard medical therapy. RESULTS: Medical records of 21 client-owned cats with CHF (median age = 10.6 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 6.5-11.2]) receiving torasemide were reviewed. Data collected included torasemide dosages, other concurrent medications, physical examination features, echocardiographic data, and potential adverse effects during follow-up. A survival analysis was performed to estimate the time from diagnosis to cardiac death. Dyspnea related to CHF was identified in all cats (pleural effusion [8/21], pulmonary edema [5/21] or both [8/21]), associated with ascites in 4/21 cats. The CHF cause was determined by echocardiography in all cats: hypertrophic (n = 10), restrictive (n = 6), arrhythmogenic right ventricular (n = 3), dilated (n = 1) cardiomyopathies, and aortic valve abnormality (n = 1). At initiation, median torasemide dosage was 0.21 mg/kg [IQR = 0.17-0.23] q24h. Clinical signs declined in most cats (20/21) during the first 2 weeks with no remarkable adverse events. Median survival time after torasemide prescription was 182 days [IQR = 46-330]. A contemporary control group including 54 cats with CHF, receiving furosemide as sole loop diuretic treatment was compared with the study group. Median (IQR) survival time of cats in the control group was not significatively different (p = 0.962) from that of the torasemide group, i.e., 148 days (9-364), although the torasemide group included significantly more cats with recurrent episodes of CHF (52%) that the control group (19%). CONCLUSIONS: This case series demonstrates that torasemide can be used in cats with spontaneous CHF. This therapeutic interest needs to be confirmed by prospective clinical trials.

Torsemide versus furosemide after acute decompensated heart failure: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are recommended by clinical practice guidelines to treat volume overload in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). The effectiveness of switching furosemide to torsemide versus optimizing the furosemide dose following ADHF has not yet been evaluated. METHODS: This retrospective observational study aimed to assess the impact of switching furosemide to torsemide versus optimizing the furosemide dose after ADHF on HF-related hospitalization within 1 month and 6 months of discharge. The study included patients previously on furosemide admitted with ADHF to the Heart Hospital in Qatar between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. The study included 2 groups: (1) patients discharged on torsemide; and (2) patients discharged on an optimized furosemide dose. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to determine the association between diuretic use and hospitalization. RESULTS: Of the 232 patients included, 45 received torsemide and 187 received an optimized furosemide dose upon discharge. The majority of patients included were males (54%) with a mean age of 67 ± 12 years, and presented with HF with reduced ejection fraction (57%) and had a history of coronary artery disease (68%). The 1-month and 6-month HF-related hospitalization did not differ between the torsemide and optimized furosemide groups (aHR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.23-2.3, p = 0.57; aHR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.45-1.8, p = 0.87), respectively. CONCLUSION: Switching furosemide to torsemide after ADHF was not associated with reduced HF-related hospitalization compared to receiving an optimized furosemide dose. Larger prospective clinical trials are needed to confirm the findings of this study.

Torsemide versus furosemide and intermediate-term outcomes in patients with heart failure: an updated meta-analysis.

AIMS: Loop diuretics have become a mainstay of chronic heart failure management. Furosemide and torsemide are the two most common loop diuretics; nevertheless, there is inconsistent evidence regarding the optimal choice of loop diuretic with respect to clinical outcomes. METHODS: Medline and Cochrane Databases were systemically reviewed for randomized and observational studies comparing patients with chronic heart failure on oral torsemide versus oral furosemide and their association with intermediate-term outcomes (5-12 months) through May 2018. Odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for outcomes. A random effect model was used to account for heterogeneity among studies. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Higgins I-square statistic. RESULTS: A total of 8127 patients were included in the analysis from a total of 14 studies (10 randomized, four observational); 5729 patients were prescribed furosemide and 2398 were given torsemide. There was no significant difference in intermediate-term mortality among heart failure patients on furosemide compared with torsemide [odds ratio (OR) 1.01, CI 0.64-1.59, I = 65.8%]; however, furosemide was associated with an increased risk of heart failure readmissions (OR 2.16, CI 1.28-2.64, I = 0.0%). Heart failure patients taking torsemide were more likely to have an improvement in New York Heart Association class compared with those on furosemide (OR 0.73, CI 0.58-0.93, I = 19.6%). CONCLUSION: Torsemide is associated with a reduction in intermediate-term heart failure readmissions and improvement in New York Heart Association class compared with furosemide but is not associated with a reduced mortality risk. Additional randomized trials are needed to examine the impact of loop diuretics on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure.

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 Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes of Torasemide and Furosemide in Heart Failure Patients in Heart Failure Registries of the European Society of Cardiology.

PURPOSE: Current clinical recommendations do not emphasise superiority of any of diuretics, but available reports are very encouraging and suggest beneficial effects of torasemide. This study aimed to compare the effect of torasemide and furosemide on long-term outcomes and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class change in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). METHODS: Of 2019 patients enrolled in Polish parts of the heart failure registries of the European Society of Cardiology (Pilot and Long-Term), 1440 patients treated with a loop diuretic were included in the analysis. The main analysis was performed on matched cohorts of HF patients treated with furosemide and torasemide using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Torasemide was associated with a similar primary endpoint (all-cause death; 9.8% vs. 14.1%; p = 0.13) occurrence and 23.8% risk reduction of the secondary endpoint (a composite of all-cause death or hospitalisation for worsening HF; 26.4% vs. 34.7%; p = 0.04). Treatment with both torasemide and furosemide was associated with the significantly most frequent occurrence of the primary (23.8%) and secondary (59.2%) endpoints. In the matched cohort after 12 months, NYHA class was higher in the furosemide group (p = 0.04), while furosemide use was associated with a higher risk (20.0% vs. 12.9%; p = 0.03) of worsening ≥ 1 NYHA class. Torasemide use impacted positively upon the primary endpoint occurrence, especially in younger patients (aged < 65 years) and with dilated cardiomyopathy. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings contribute to the body of research on the optimal diuretic choice. Torasemide may have advantageous influence on NYHA class and long-term outcomes of HF patients, especially younger patients or those with dilated cardiomyopathy, but it needs further investigations in prospective randomised trials.

Comparative effectiveness of torasemide versus furosemide in symptomatic therapy in heart failure patients: Preliminary results from the randomized TORNADO trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest that torasemide might be more beneficial than furosemide in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF). The aim was to compare the effects of torasemide and furosemide on clinical outcomes in HF patients. METHODS: This study pilot consisted of data from the ongoing multicenter, randomized, unblinded endpoint phase IV TORNADO (NCT01942109) study. HF patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) II-IV class with a stable dose of furosemide were randomized to treatment with equipotential dose of torasemide (4:1) or continuation of unchanged dose of furosemide. On enrollment and control visit (3 months after enrollment) clinical examination, 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and assessment of fluid retention by ZOE Fluid Status Monitor were performed. The primary endpoint was a composite of improvement of NYHA class, improvement of at least 50 m during 6MWT and decrease in fluid retention of at least 0.5 W after 3-months follow-up. RESULTS: The study group included 40 patients (median age 66 years; 77.5% male). During follow-up 7 patients were hospitalized for HF worsening (3 in torasemide and 4 in furosemide-treated patients). The primary endpoint reached 15 (94%) and 14 (58%) patients on torasemide and furosemide, respectively (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In HF patients treated with torasemide fluid overload and symptoms improved more than in the furosemide group. This positive effect occurred already within 3-month observation.

Short-Term Effects of Tolvaptan in Tricuspid Insufficiency Combined with Left Heart Valve Replacement-Caused Volume-Overload Patients: Results of a Prospective Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to explore the effects of tolvaptan as a new therapeutic approach in patients with right heart failure with tricuspid insufficiency (TI). METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, non-randomized controlled pilot study enrolled patients (N = 40) with TI from the Shanghai Chest Hospital and Shanghai Tongren Hospital who fulfilled inclusion criteria between March 2015 and June 2016. Participants were assigned to receive either tolvaptan combined with torasemide (n = 20) or torasemide monotherapy (n = 20; control group). The primary endpoints were changes in patient weight and in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) after 10 days of treatment. The secondary endpoints included net fluid balance and cardiac functions before and after medication from the first to the tenth day of treatment. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse and serious adverse events. RESULTS: TAPSE significantly increased in the tolvaptan group compared with the control group after 10 days of medication (P = 0.029). Daily weight losses in the tolvaptan group significantly increased as the time of treatment increased (time × group, P = 0.022). Recovery to New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade I occurred 4 days earlier in the tolvaptan group. In addition, the net fluid balance and median net fluid balance were significantly higher in the tolvaptan group. Eight adverse events and one serious adverse event were recorded in the tolvaptan group and 15 adverse events were recorded in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that tolvaptan might be a useful and safe drug to improve heart function in patients with right heart failure with TI after left heart valve replacement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier no. NCT02644616.

Hypokalaemic quadriparesis following torsemide and spironolactone use.

Mild hypokalaemia is a common electrolyte abnormality following therapeutic doses of diuretics such as torsemide. If undiagnosed and untreated, hypokalaemia progresses and smooth muscle, skeletal muscle and the heart are affected. Potassium-sparing diuretics such as spironolactone are commonly added to loop diuretics to prevent symptomatic hypokalaemia. We present a patient with moderate hypokal-aemia associated with the use of torsemide and spironolactone, resulting in quadriparesis, hospitalization and electrophysio-logical abnormalities.