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.

Is multidisciplinary care of heart failure cost-beneficial when combined with optimal medical care?

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) of heart failure (HF) can significantly reduce rates of unplanned hospitalisation, the major cost component of HF care. AIMS: This prospective, randomised, controlled study examines the cost-benefits of MDC of HF in the setting of optimal medical care. METHODS: 98 NYHA class IV HF patients (mean age 70.8+/-10.5 years) were randomised to MDC (n=51) or routine care (RC; n=47) of HF. A direct intervention cost was calculated from contact time (scheduled and unscheduled) spent by the MDC team. Unplanned hospitalisation costs for HF were calculated at a daily rate of 242. Outcomes were determined in monetary terms, i.e. the cost of the service per hospitalisation prevented and net costs/savings at 3 months. RESULTS: The direct intervention cost of the MDC team was 5860, with an average cost per patient of 113 (95% Cl: 97-128). At 3 months, there were a total of 12 unplanned HF readmissions in the RC group (25.5% rate, 195 days) compared to 2 in the MDC group (3.9% rate, 17 days). The number needed to treat to prevent one hospitalisation for HF was 6 over 3 months. The cost of the service per hospitalisation prevented was 586. The intervention produced a net cost saving of 37,216 for 51 patients treated over 3 months. Sensitivity analyses using 50% variation in costs and lower relative risk reductions confirmed the cost-benefits of the intervention. CONCLUSION: MDC of HF remains cost-beneficial when combined with optimal, medical care. The significant clinical and cost-benefits suggest that this intensive approach to MDC and medical management should become the standard of care for HF.

[Long-term diuretic treatment in heart failure: are there differences between furosemide and torasemide?]. / Diuretika-Langzeitbehandlung bei Herzinsuffizienz: Gibt es Unterschiede zwischen Furosemid und Torasemid?

BACKGROUND: Treatment for congestive heart failure (CHF) is an important factor in rising health care costs especially in patients requiring repeated hospitalisations. Diuretics remain the most frequently utilized drugs in symptomatic patients. In this study the long-term outcome under furosemide and torasemide, two loop diuretics with different pharmacokinetic properties, were evaluated during one year in an ambulatory care setting. AIMS: Comparison of hospitalization rates and estimated costs under long-term treatment with furosemide and torasemide in patients with CHF. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of disease course and resource utilization in 222 ambulatory patients receiving long-term treatment with furosemide (n = 111) or torasemide (n = 111). Data were also compared to those of a similar study including 1000 patients in Germany. RESULTS: Patients receiving long-term treatment with torasemide had a lower hospitalisation rate (3.6%) compared to patients on furosemide (5.4%). Corresponding hospitalization rates in the German study were 1.4% under torasemide and 2% under furosemide. The higher hospitalisation rates in Swiss patients could be explained by a higher average age (75 years vs. 69 years) and a longer duration of symptomatic heart failure (4.1 yrs vs. 0.7 yrs). Cost estimates based on the average number of hospital days (0.54 under torasemide compared to 1.05 under furosemide) indicated that the financial burden could be halved by a long-term torasemide treatment. CONCLUSION: Torasemide with its more complete and less variable bioavailability offers potential clinical and economic advantages over furosemide in the long-term treatment in patients with CHF.

Aggressive diuresis for severe heart failure in the elderly.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy, safety, and economic benefit of continuous IV infusion of furosemide as a treatment modality for elderly patients with class IV heart failure. DESIGN: Prospective trial of consecutively admitted elderly patients > 65 years old with class IV heart failure. SETTING: A single cardiovascular service in a university medical center. PATIENTS: Seventeen male and female patients > 65 years old consecutively admitted to a cardiovascular service. RESULTS: High-dose, continuous IV infusion of furosemide was successful in providing a 9- to 20-L diuresis in an average of 3.5 days without causing clinical complications or aberrations in blood chemistry. The length of stay was 2.3 days shorter than a contemporary group of class III and class IV elderly patients with heart failure managed on other medical services. The Medicare reimbursement for heart failure was $6,047. Patients receiving IV bolus diuretic therapy incurred billing charges of $10,193, or a loss of $4,146 per patient to the hospital. Patients receiving diuretic infusion therapy incurred billing charges of $4,944. This was a difference of $5,249 per patient treated by continuous IV infusion compared to bolus therapy and a profit per Medicare patient of $1,103. Therefore, a $4,146 billing loss was converted to $1,103 profit. CONCLUSION: IV furosemide infusion therapy for class IV heart failure in the elderly is a safe, effective, and economic mode of therapy.

A pharmacoeconomic assessment of torsemide and furosemide in the treatment of patients with congestive heart failure.

The management of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) can place a significant economic burden on managed care organizations, leading providers to seek treatments that are cost-effective. Diuretics play a significant role in the treatment of edema associated with CHF. We evaluated the use of 2 loop diuretics, torsemide and furosemide, in patients with CHF in a managed care setting. This prospective study compared clinical, economic, and quality-of-life outcomes in 240 patients randomized to the 2 drugs. Patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or class III CHF requiring loop diuretic treatment, either alone or in conjunction with other therapy, were eligible. Patients were told about the study during an office visit, and those with an interest in participating and who met the eligibility criteria were given further information and the opportunity to participate. After investigators obtained informed consent, patients were enrolled, randomized to either treatment, and followed for 6 months. Outcomes included CHF/cardiovascular (CV)-related medical costs, change in NYHA class, change in sodium retention score, hospitalizations, physician visits, medication use, adverse events, and change in quality of life. A total of 103 patients were randomized to torsemide, and 137 patients were randomized to furosemide. Except for body weight, patient demographic characteristics did not differ between groups at baseline; patients in the torsemide group were significantly heavier (P = 0.004). The results showed that mean total CHF/CV-related medical costs did not differ between groups (torsemide, $1520.07; furosemide, $1503.26; P = 0.975), despite higher mean drug-acquisition costs for torsemide patients ($121.01 vs $42.95; P < 0.0001). Mean costs were similar for CHF/CV-related hospitalizations (torsemide, $845.84; furosemide, $893.33; P = 0.918) and CHF-related physician visits (torsemide, $138.80; furosemide, $164.09; P = 0.288). Quality of life was significantly better for patients in the torsemide group at month 4 (P = 0.017), but not at month 2 (P = 0.059) or month 6 (P = 0.269). The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups (torsemide, 221; furosemide, 287; P = 0.916). The results of this study appear to indicate that in a representative cross-section of managed care patients, those who received torsemide, despite higher drug-acquisition costs, had similar CHF/CV-related management costs compared with furosemide recipients.

Comparison of therapies with torasemide or furosemide in patients with congestive heart failure from a pharmacoeconomic viewpoint.

This observational study compared patients suffering from congestive heart failure (CHF) who were treated with loop diuretics torasemide or furosemide. Data documenting the course of the disease and its associated costs over a period of one year were collected retrospectively. A total of 400 CHF patients, 200 in each treatment group, were included in the analysis. Concomitant ACE inhibitor therapy was received by 46% of patients in both groups. More torasemide-treated patients (38.0%) than furosemide-treated patients (24.5%) achieved an improvement in NYHA class in the one-year period. The main difference between the two groups was the number of CHF-related hospitalisations: 62 vs 324 hospital days due to CHF were necessary among torasemide- and furosemide-treated patients, respectively. Thus torasemide treatment was associated with an 80% reduction in hospital days compared with furosemide. Furthermore, about 30% fewer working days were lost in the torasemide group than in the furosemide group (441 days vs 617 days, respectively). Direct and indirect costs were evaluated, resulting in overall annual costs of DEM 1502 per torasemide-treated patient and DEM 1863 per furosemide-treated patient. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed a difference between the therapies of DEM 3651 in favour of torasemide. In conclusion, treatment with torasemide improved clinical outcome and was more cost-effective than with furosemide.

Pharmacoeconomic comparison of loop diuretics in the treatment of congestive heart failure.

As MCOs explore opportunities for delivering more cost-effective medical care, prioritization based on drug utilization reviews alone may not adequately highlight those disease states that consume a disproportionate share of overall resource cost; the daily cost of pharmacotherapy may not reflect the overall economic effect. As the elderly proportion of the population grows, the treatment of congestive heart failure may represent for MCOs an increasingly important opportunity to achieve acceptable or even improved outcomes while controlling the costs of hospitalization and other resources. The introduction of new pharmaceuticals presents an ongoing challenge for managed care to determine whether they offer a pharmacoeconomic advantage over current treatment regimens. This paper reports on an economic assessment made between a new and an existing loop diuretic in the treatment of congestive heart failure.

How common is heart failure? Evidence from PACT (prescribing analysis and cost) data in Nottingham.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of heart failure in Nottinghamshire by an analysis of prescriptions for loop diuretics. METHODS: An observational study was carried out in the Nottingham Health District, on the basis of Prescribing Analysis and Cost (PACT) data relating to nearly 400,000 kg of frusemide prescribed in the year 1991-1992 and general practitioner (GP) records on two groups of patients (total 903) prescribed frusemide. RESULTS: The total amount of frusemide prescribed on a daily basis in Nottinghamshire in 1,048,566 mg. The mean daily dose of frusemide per patient is 60 mg and the median dose 40 mg. There are between 13,107 and 26,214 patients taking frusemide in Nottinghamshire. Fifty-six per cent of patients prescribed loop diuretics by their GP fulfil diagnostic criteria for heart failure. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of heart failure in Nottinghamshire estimated from loop diuretic prescribing increases from 0.1 per cent in the age-group 30-39 years to 5.45 percent in patients aged over 90 years.