ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are commonly prescribed in the community, not always to patients with a recorded diagnosis of heart failure (HF). The rate of HF events in patients prescribed loop diuretics without a diagnosis of HF is unknown. METHODS: This was a propensity-matched cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics in the UK. Patients prescribed a loop diuretic without a diagnosis of HF (loop diuretic group) between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 were compared with patients with HF (HF group)-analysis A, and patients with risk factors for HF (either ischaemic heart disease, or diabetes and hypertension-at-risk group)-analysis B. The primary endpoint was an HF event (a composite of presentation with HF symptoms, HF hospitalisation, HF diagnosis (analysis B only) and all-cause mortality). RESULTS: From a total population of 180 384 patients (78 968 in the loop diuretic group, 28 177 in the HF group and 73 239 in the at-risk group), there were 59 694 patients, 22 352 patients and 57 219 patients in the loop diuretic, HF and at-risk groups, respectively, after exclusion criteria were applied. After propensity matching for age, sex and comorbidities, patients in the loop diuretic group had a similar rate of HF events as those in the HF group (71.9% vs 72.1%; HR=0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94); p<0.001), and twice as those in the at-risk group (59.2% vs 35.7%; HR=2.04 (95% CI 2.00 to 2.08); p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients prescribed a loop diuretic without a recorded diagnosis of HF experience HF events at a rate comparable with that of patients with a recorded diagnosis of HF; many of these patients may have undiagnosed HF.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Fluid retention or congestion is a major cause of symptoms, poor quality of life, and adverse outcome in patients with heart failure (HF). Despite advances in disease-modifying therapy, the mainstay of treatment for congestion-loop diuretics-has remained largely unchanged for 50 years. In these two articles (part I: loop diuretics and part II: combination therapy), we will review the history of diuretic treatment and the current trial evidence for different diuretic strategies and explore potential future directions of research. RECENT FINDINGS: We will assess recent trials including DOSE, TRANSFORM, ADVOR, CLOROTIC, OSPREY-AHF, and PUSH-AHF amongst others, and assess how these may influence current practice and future research. There are few data on which to base diuretic therapy in clinical practice. The most robust evidence is for high dose loop diuretic treatment over low-dose treatment for patients admitted to hospital with HF, yet this is not reflected in guidelines. There is an urgent need for more and better research on different diuretic strategies in patients with HF.
