Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

A Systematic Critical Review of Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Torasemide.

PURPOSE: Torasemide is a potassium-sparing loop diuretic used to treat fluid retention associated with congestive heart failure and kidney and hepatic diseases. This systematic review was conducted to combine all accessible data on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of torasemide in healthy and diseased populations, which may help clinicians avert adverse drug reactions and determine the correct dosage regimen. METHODS: Four databases were systematically searched to screen for studies associated with the PK of torasemide, and 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023390178). RESULTS: A decrease in maximum plasma concentration (C max ) was observed for torasemide after administration of the prolonged-release formulation in comparison to that after administration of the immediate-release formulation, that is, 1.12 ± 0.17 versus 1.6 ± 0.2 mcg/mL. After administering an oral dose of torasemide, a 2-fold increase in the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was reported in patients with congestive heart failure compared with the healthy population. Moreover, the patients with renal failure (clearance < 30 mL/min) showed an increase in value of AUC 0-∞ that is, 42.9 versus 8.091 mcg.h -1 .mL -1 compared with healthy subjects. In addition, some studies have reported interactions with different drugs, in which irbesartan showed a slight increase in the AUC 0-∞ of torasemide, whereas losartan and empagliflozin did not. CONCLUSIONS: The current review summarizes all available PK parameters of torasemide that may be beneficial for avoiding drug-drug interactions in subjects with renal and hepatic dysfunction and for predicting doses in patients with different diseases.

Highly fluorescent nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots prepared using sucrose and urea: Green synthesis, characterization, and use for determination of torsemide in its tablets and plasma samples.

A simple and facile microwave-assisted method was developed for the synthesis of highly fluorescent nitrogen-doped carbon quantum dots (N-CQDs) using sucrose and urea. The produced quantum dots exhibited a strong emission band at 376 nm after excitation at 216 nm with quantum yield of 0.57. The as-prepared N-CQDs were characterized using Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images, and ultraviolet-visible (UV-visible) spectra. The average particle size was 7.7 nm. It was found that torsemide (TRS) caused an obvious quenching of the fluorescent N-CQDs; so, they were used for its spectrofluorometric estimation. An excellent linear correlation was found between the fluorescence quenching of N-CQDs and the concentration of the drug in the range of 0.10 to 1.0 µg/mL with limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.08 µg/mL and limit of detection (LOD) of 0.027 µg/mL. The method was successfully applied for the assay of the drug in its commercial tablets and spiked human plasma samples, and the results obtained were satisfactory. Complex GAPI was used for greenness assessment of the analytical procedures and the pre-analysis steps. Interference likely to be introduced from co-administered drugs was also studied.

Fixed-dose Combination of Torsemide and Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists.

The combination of torsemide and spironolactone presents a promising approach to managing conditions such as edema and hypertension. Torsemide, a loop diuretic, enhances diuresis by inhibiting sodium reabsorption in the kidneys, while spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), complements this effect by preventing potassium loss and offering additional cardiovascular benefits. This review examines clinical evidence supporting their combined effectiveness in treating fluid retention and improving outcomes in conditions like heart failure (HF). Given the limited research available, it is essential to carefully evaluate patient-specific factors. However, several side effects necessitate careful patient selection and monitoring. Moreover, optimizing dosing regimens is crucial to ensure the safety and efficacy of torsemide and MRAs in clinical settings.

Torsemide in Edema Associated with Hepatic Impairment.

Hepatic edema is caused by decreased hepatic protein synthesis, a consequence of decompensated liver cirrhosis. Fluid accumulation occurs when there is an increase in hydrostatic pressure in the hepatic sinusoids and splanchnic capillaries, as well as low albumin. The first-line treatment for cirrhosis-related ascites is an aldosterone antagonist (spironolactone); however, in severe and recurring ascites, a combination of aldosterone antagonists and loop diuretics (torsemide, furosemide, and bumetanide) is preferable. Torsemide outperformed furosemide in terms of natriuretic and diuretic effects at an equivalent dose. Pharmacological features of torsemide, such as lesser hypokalemia effect, longer duration of action, higher bioavailability, and extended half-life, make it a better alternative than furosemide. In clinical studies, it is considered a safer and more acceptable choice with fewer complications.

Torsemide in the Management of Pulmonary Edema.

Pulmonary edema, either cardiogenic or noncardiogenic, is caused by fluid accumulation in the alveolar spaces. Cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE), one of the causes of congestive heart failure (CHF), is treated with loop diuretics. Torsemide and furosemide were found to be useful in the treatment of CHF-associated pulmonary edema due to their ability to lower pulmonary capillary pressure and left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, respectively. Pharmacological features of torsemide, such as greater bioavailability, higher absorption rate, and efficacy, make it a better alternative for treating pulmonary edema than the regularly used loop diuretic, furosemide. Torsemide administered intravenously was found to be both efficacious and well tolerated in CPE. However, more research is needed to determine its usefulness in non-CPE.

Torsemide in Edema Associated with Chronic Kidney Disease.

Torsemide is a loop diuretic used to manage edema associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and acute kidney injury (AKI). It acts by inhibiting sodium and chloride ions reabsorption in the ascending limb of the loop of Henle, thereby increasing urine output and reducing fluid accumulation. Compared to other diuretics, torsemide has an extended duration of action, higher bioavailability, and its elimination route is primarily through the hepatic route, making it effective in patients with CKD and AKI. Clinical studies indicate that torsemide can improve symptoms of fluid overload and potentially enhance renal function.

Torsemide as a Primary Choice in Edema Associated with Heart Failure.

Heart failure (HF) is the fastest-growing disease with a higher fatality rate. The most differentiating feature of HF is pulmonary or peripheral edema, which is characterized by a gradient between intravascular and extravascular pressure. Loop diuretics were chosen as the primary treatment for edema associated with HF due to their efficacy and early onset of action. If an oral dose had not been provided, intravenous (IV) administration of torsemide, or equal doses of furosemide and bumetanide, was preferred. However, the key variables for selecting and administering loop diuretics are their pharmacological qualities as well as their clinical efficacy. Torsemide has greater bioavailability, a higher rate of absorption, a longer duration of action, and lesser ototoxicity, making it the primary choice in the management of edematous HF.

Unique Pharmacological Properties and Safety Profiles of Loop Diuretics.

Loop diuretics are regarded as essential for the treatment of edematous conditions in heart failure, cirrhosis, and renal disease. The principal mechanism of action involves inhibiting the reabsorption of ions (Na+, 2Cl-, and K+) from the ascending loop of Henle. The pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) features of the commonly used diuretics (torsemide, furosemide, and bumetanide) influence the selection of diuretics in various disease states and dosing regimens. However, torsemide demonstrates superior PK and PD qualities, making it the preferred choice. Genetic polymorphisms must be explored to better understand the diversity of PK and PD parameters of loop diuretics between individuals.

Torsemide in the Management of Essential Hypertension.

Torsemide, a loop diuretic, is increasingly recognized for its role in managing essential hypertension. Its mechanism of action involves inhibiting the reabsorption of sodium and chloride ions in the ascending loop of Henle in the kidneys. By doing so, torsemide promotes diuresis, which refers to increased urine production, and subsequently lowers blood pressure. Studies have shown that torsemide is comparably effective to other antihypertensive agents in lowering blood pressure, with the added benefit of potentially improving renal function. However, while torsemide shows promise in hypertensive management, further research is necessary to fully understand its long-term effects and to establish optimal dosing strategies. Future research should focus on clarifying its role in long-term blood pressure control and refining its use in clinical practice to maximize efficacy and minimize adverse effects.

Torsemide Crystalline Salts with a Significant Spring-Parachute Effect.

Torsemide is a long acting pyridine sulfonylurea diuretic. Torsemide hydrochloride is widely used now, there are only a few organic acid salts reported. Cocrystallization with organic acids is an effective way to improve its solubility. Here, we reported maleate and phthalate of torsemide, in which the organic acid lost a proton transferring to the pyridine of torsemide, and torsemide interacted with organic acid through N+ - H⋯O- hydrogen bond to form salts crystal. Surprisingly, maleate showed a clear "spring" pattern in apparent solubility, whereas phthalate had a "spring-parachute" effect. Both crystalline salts kept a higher solubility than torsemide without falling. The "spring-parachute" effect of crystalline salts promoted rapid dissolution of torsemide and kept a high concentration, thereby increasing its bioavailability.

PERIOCULAR HIGH RISK BCCS AFTER ADDITIONAL/PARALLEL INTAKE OF TORASEMIDE, MOXONIDINE AND MIRABEGRON: IMPORTANT LINKS TO SKIN CANCER RELATED (PHOTO-) NITROSOGENESIS IN THE CONTEXT OF PHARMACO-ONCOGENESIS.

The Nitrosogenesis of skin cancer is a modern newly introduced concept in medicine, mainly concerning melanoma, but also keratinocytic cancers such as basal cell carcinoma. The nitroso-contamination of more than 300 drugs worldwide and the permanent (relatively short-term) intake of mutagen-contaminated drugs could create serious prerequisites for the development of skin cancer. Retrospective but also prospective analyses following potentially contaminated polymedication with a heterogeneous type of nitrosamines in real patients are indicative of a causal connection rather than a sporadic association between 1) intake of a possibly nitrosamine-contaminated drug and 2) generation of keratinocytic skin cancer. The pathogenesis of high-risk periocular localized basal cell carcinomas was until recently shrouded in mystery as it was mainly and until now associated with 1) intake of phototoxic drugs and 2) intense exposure to UV radiation (without intake of drugs), 3) congenital or acquired immunodeficiencies, and 4) Goltz Gorlin syndrome or 5) Xeroderma pigmentosum. Nitrosamines/ NDSRIs within the framework of polycotaminated drug intake appear to be one reasonable additional explanation for the association between carcinogen intake and subsequent skin cancer development and progression, and a relatively short-term one at that. Recently published scientific data provide information on a new ability of some of the nitrosamines - namely that some of them are photocarcinogenic or genotoxic after activation with UVA radiation. We present 4 patients who developed high-risk periocular localized basal cell carcinomas of the skin after/within the intake of potentially nitrosamine-contaminated drugs. The presented data are confirmatory with respect to previously published scientific observations on the carcinogenic effects of valsartan, candesartan, bisoprolol, metoprolol, perindopril, lisinopril and amlodipine. The contribution of newly validated data concerning potential/actual carcinogenic/genotoxic activity in the article is also due to the following newly announced nitroso preparations: torasemide, moxonidine and mirabegron. The expansion of the ˝bases of the pyramid˝ determining the stability of drug related (Photo) Nitrosogenesis/ Carcinogenesis (in terms of skin cancer generation) is growing daily. Exogenously/drug-induced Nitrosogenesis and the subsequently triggered carcinogenesis are a completely new explanatory concepts concerning the pathogenesis of skin tumors that remained unanalyzed and hidden for decades. Until now. The official lack of 1) availability, and of 2) precise concentrations regarding nitrosamines in medicinal preparations, are some of the most unexplained acts of irresponsibility to end-users and remain for the moment without a definitive answer from either regulators and manufacturers respectively. Polycontamination of polymedication in polymorbid patients remains highly problematic, at least as a cofactor in the development and progression of keratinocytic cancers, and this in the short term. Recently published data but also data from the past are suggestive that nitrosamines in tobacco are pivotal in the development of acquired mutations in p53 and RAS oncogenes in humans and rodents. The same genes are also affected by mutations in keratinocytic cancer patients. The overlapping mutation patterns of UV radiation-induced mutations in target genes such as p53 and RAS with those caused by some nitrosamines is indicative of a synergism available in terms of gene toxicity or possibly photocarcinogenicity of the latter. What leads the scientific community to believe that the nitrosamines in drugs, similar in composition and carcinogenic potency, act differently, is unclear. The link between drug intake, nitrosamine contamination, generation of some acquired mutations and subsequent cancer development becomes more than obvious and logically conditioned. The thesis of the controlled spread of cancer sounds more than logical today because: whoever controls and regulates the spread of carcinogens/mutagens/nitrosamines is also able to control the occurrence and spread of skin cancer. The Pharmaco-oncogenesis of skin cancer is determined by exogenously mediated Nitrosogenesis or the permissive availability for certain nitrosamines in drugs worldwide.

The loop diuretic torasemide but not azosemide potentiates the anti-seizure and disease-modifying effects of midazolam in a rat model of birth asphyxia.

Loop diuretics such as furosemide and bumetanide, which act by inhibiting the Na-K-2Cl cotransporter NKCC2 at the thick ascending limb of the loop of Henle, have been shown to exert anti-seizure effects. However, the exact mechanism of this effect is not known. For bumetanide, it has been suggested that inhibition of the NKCC isoform NKCC1 in the membrane of brain neurons may be involved; however, NKCC1 is expressed by virtually all cell types in the brain, which makes any specific targeting of neuronal NKCC1 by bumetanide impossible. In addition, bumetanide only poorly penetrates the brain. We have previously shown that loop diuretics azosemide and torasemide also potently inhibit NKCC1. In contrast to bumetanide and furosemide, azosemide and torasemide lack a carboxylic group, which should allow them to better penetrate through biomembranes by passive diffusion. Because of the urgent medical need to develop new treatments for neonatal seizures and their adverse outcome, we evaluated the effects of azosemide and torasemide, administered alone or in combination with phenobarbital or midazolam, in a rat model of birth asphyxia and neonatal seizures. Neither diuretic suppressed the seizures when administered alone but torasemide potentiated the anti-seizure effect of midazolam. Brain levels of torasemide were below those needed to inhibit NKCC1. In addition to suppressing seizures, the combination of torasemide and midazolam, but not midazolam alone, prevented the cognitive impairment of the post-asphyxial rats at 3 months after asphyxia. Furthermore, aberrant mossy fiber sprouting in the hippocampus was more effectively prevented by the combination. We assume that either an effect on NKCC1 at the blood-brain barrier and/or cells in the periphery or the NKCC2-mediated diuretic effect of torasemide are involved in the present findings. Our data suggest that torasemide may be a useful option for improving the treatment of neonatal seizures and their adverse outcome.

Effect of Torsemide vs Furosemide After Discharge on All-Cause Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide. Objective: To determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022. Interventions: Loop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide. Results: TRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Ascertaining Death Events in a Pragmatic Clinical Trial: Insights From the TRANSFORM-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Death ascertainment can be challenging for pragmatic clinical trials that limit site follow-up activities to usual clinical care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used blinded aggregate data from the ongoing ToRsemide comparison with furoSemide FOR Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) pragmatic clinical trial in patients with heart failure to evaluate the agreement between centralized call center death event identification and the United States National Death Index (NDI). Of 2284 total patients randomized through April 12, 2021, 1480 were randomized in 2018-2019 and 804 in 2020-2021. The call center identified 416 total death events (177 in 2018-2019 and 239 in 2020-2021). The NDI 2018-2019 final file identified 178 death events, 165 of which were also identified by the call center. The study's inter-rater reliability metric (Cohen's kappa coefficient, 0.920; 95% confidence interval, 0.889-0.951) demonstrates a high level of agreement. The time between a death event and its identification was less for the call center (median, 47 days; interquartile range, 11-103 days) than for the NDI (median, 270 days; interquartile range, 186-391 days). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial agreement between deaths identified by a centralized call center and the NDI. However, the time between a death event and its identification is significantly less for the call center.

Safety of torasemide in healthy adult dogs administered daily for 26 weeks.

Thirty-two (16 males and 16 females) healthy young beagles were randomly divided into four groups of eight. The control group remained untreated. Torasemide (ISEMID® , Ceva Santé Animale) was orally administered, once daily, at 0.5 mg/kg from Days 1-5 then 0.25 mg/kg to Day 182, and at three times and five times this dosing regimen in two additional groups. Treated animals (predominantly at the higher dose levels) showed dryness of the oral mucosa, evidence of diuresis, decreased diet consumption, decreased bodyweight gain over the first 3 weeks, increased water consumption, increases in erythrocytes count, haemoglobin, calcium and magnesium, decrease in chloride, phosphorus, potassium and sodium, increases in urine pH, decreases in urine specific gravity and increases in serum aldosterone concentrations. Plasma concentrations of torasemide increased in a dose-dependent manner and showed no evidence of accumulation. There were also changes to electrocardiogram patterns and the macroscopic and microscopic appearance of the kidney and adrenal glands, but these changes were almost exclusively confined to the over-dosed groups. In conclusion, torasemide was found to be safe when administered to dogs at 0.25 mg/kg once daily for 26 weeks, and any changes were consistent with its known diuretic effects.

Comparative effects of furosemide and other diuretics in the treatment of heart failure: a systematic review and combined meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Diuretics have an essential role in the management of heart failure (HF). However, each drug has its own benefit and side effect. Side effects include fluid, electrolyte abnormalities, and acid-base disturbance. These adverse effects of diuretics predispose patients to serious cardiac arrhythmias and may increase the risk of arrhythmic mortality. Herein, we aim to summarize the relative efficacy and safety of all available diuretics used in the treatment of patients with HF. In June 2017, a systematic electronic database search was conducted in nine databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the different diuretics used in HF were included for meta-analysis. The protocol was registered in Prospero with CRD42018084819. Among the included 54 studies (10,740 patients), 34 RCTs were eligible for quantitative network meta-analysis (NMA) and traditional meta-analysis while the other 20 studies were qualitatively analyzed. Our results showed that azosemide and torasemide caused a significant reduction in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level. Torasemide also caused a significant decrease in collagen volume fraction (CVF) and edema. No significant difference between the agents concerning glomerular filtration rate (GFR), water extraction, and sodium excretion was demonstrated. Regarding side effects, no significant difference among diuretics was observed in terms of hospital readmission and mortality rates. Diuretics are the main treatment of hypervolemia in HF patients. The choice of appropriate diuretic is essential for successful management and is mainly guided by patient clinical situations and the presence of other co-morbidities.

The search for brain-permeant NKCC1 inhibitors for the treatment of seizures: Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of NKCC1 inhibition by azosemide, torasemide, and bumetanide in mouse brain.

Because of its potent inhibitory effect on the Na+-K+-2Cl- symporter isotype 1 (NKCC1) in brain neurons, bumetanide has been tested with varying results for treatment of seizures that potentially evolve as a consequence of abnormal NKCC1 activity. However, because of its physicochemical properties, bumetanide only poorly penetrates into the brain. We previously demonstrated that NKCC1 can be also inhibited by azosemide and torasemide, which lack the carboxyl group of bumetanide and thus should be better brain-permeable. Here we studied the brain distribution kinetics of azosemide and torasemide in comparison with bumetanide in mice and used pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling to determine whether the drugs reach NKCC1-inhibitory brain concentrations. All three drugs hardly distributed into the brain, which seemed to be the result of probenecid-sensitive efflux transport at the blood-brain barrier. When fractions unbound in plasma and brain were determined by equilibrium dialysis, only about 6-17% of the brain drug concentration were freely available. With the systemic doses (10 mg/kg i.v.) used, free brain concentrations of bumetanide and torasemide were in the NKCC1-inhibitory concentration range, while levels of azosemide were slightly below this range. However, all three drugs exhibited free plasma levels that would be sufficient to block NKCC1 at the apical membrane of brain capillary endothelial cells. These data suggest that azosemide and torasemide are interesting alternatives to bumetanide for treatment of seizures involving abnormal NKCC1 functionality, particularly because of their longer duration of action and their lower diuretic potency, which is an advantage in patients with seizures.

LOOP DIURETICS IN HEART FAILURE: EVIDENCE-BASED CHOICE.

OBJECTIVE: The aim: Of the article is to conduct a comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of torasemide and furosemide in patients with heart failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: Analysis of the existing clinical trials and meta-analyzes that combine the results of the completed studies aimed at the investigation of comparative efficacy of furosemide and torasemide in patients with heart failure (НF). CONCLUSION: Conclusions: There is enough convincing evidence to speak about the advantages of torasemide over furosemide both in terms of its pharmacological properties and taking into account the reduction of hospitalizations, functional progress and improvement in the quality of life of patients with НF. The safety profile of torasemide is more favorable, as it is associated with a reduced risk of hypokalemia compared to furosemide. The abovementioned facts favor the use of torasemide in patients with symptomatic НF, as well as the transition from furosemide to torasemide in patients with edema caused by НF, which remain uncontrolled despite receiving optimal doses of furosemide.

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 .