Comparison of salt with low-dose furosemide and carperitide for treating acute decompensated heart failure: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Hypertonic saline with furosemide has been proposed for a long time as an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We previously reported the efficacy of continuous infusion of 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide in treatment for ADHF. Although this therapeutic strategy can be a useful option for effective decongestion in treatment for ADHF, there is no study that assesses the effect and safety of saline supplementation compared with standard therapy in Japan. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide infusion compared with carperitide. We compared clinical outcomes, adverse events, and cost for patients receiving carperitide (carperitide group) with those for patients receiving 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide (salt group) during the initial hospitalization for ADHF. The cost analysis was performed on the basis of the previous report about cost-effectiveness of acute heart failure. A total of 175 ADHF patients received either carperitide (n = 111) or 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide infusion (n = 64) as initial treatment. There were no differences in length of hospital stay (27 ± 19 vs. 25 ± 16 day, p = 0.170) and infusion period (7.2 ± 6.1 vs. 8.4 ± 7.5 day, p = 0.474) between the two groups. The incidence of rehospitalization did not differ at 1 month (7.6 vs. 6.6 %, p = 1.000) and 1 year (36.8 vs. 37.7 %, p = 0.907) between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier curves revealed no significant difference for 1 year all-cause mortality between the two groups (log-rank, p = 0.724). The single hospitalization cost was 95,314 yen lower and the yearly hospitalization cost 125,628 yen lower in the salt group compared with the carperitide group. Thus, intravenous 1.7 % hypertonic saline plus low-dose furosemide infusion is as effective as carperitide in terms of clinical outcome and is a cost-effective therapeutic strategy for the treatment of ADHF.

Comparison of the initial hospitalization costs between the patients treated with dobutamine and the patients treated with amrinone for acute decompensated heart failure in a Japanese institute.

OBJECTIVES: Phosphodiesterase (PDE) III inhibitor therapy is effective for treatment of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Nevertheless, this drug is expensive than conventional inotropic agent dobutamine. We compared total medication costs of the patients treated with PDE III inhibitor amrinone therapy to that of the patients treated with conventional dobutamine therapy during initial hospitalization. METHODS: We analyzed 160 consecutive patients with ADHF admitted to our hospital. Shock, dehydration, severe infection, multiple organ failure, and mild heart failure (New York Heart Association class IIs) were not eligible for the study. Ninety-seven patients were divided into two groups: 1) DOB group treated with dobutamine therapy; and 2) AMR group treated with amrinone therapy. Total medication costs and cost for hospital room charge were calculated based on their usage during the initial hospitalization for each patient. Group comparison was done between the DOB and AMR groups. RESULTS: Length of stay was longer in the DOB group than in the AMR group. Mean calculated cost of intravenous drugs was higher in the DOB group (173,186 +/- 239,147 yen) than in the AMR group (63,145 +/- 47,223 yen, P < 0.05). Total medication costs were higher in the DOB group than in the AMR group. Cost for hospital room charge was higher in the DOB group than in the AMR group. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of ADHF, appropriate therapy even with expensive drugs makes total medication costs less expensive comparing with conventional therapy with cheaper drugs during initial hospitalization.