Dapagliflozin vs. metolazone in heart failure resistant to loop diuretics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To examine the decongestive effect of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin compared to the thiazide-like diuretic metolazone in patients hospitalized for heart failure and resistant to treatment with intravenous furosemide. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multi-centre, open-label, randomized, and active-comparator trial. Patients were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5-10 mg once daily for a 3-day treatment period, with follow-up for primary and secondary endpoints until day 5 (96 h). The primary endpoint was a diuretic effect, assessed by change in weight (kg). Secondary endpoints included a change in pulmonary congestion (lung ultrasound), loop diuretic efficiency (weight change per 40 mg of furosemide), and a volume assessment score. 61 patients were randomized. The mean (±standard deviation) cumulative dose of furosemide at 96 h was 977 (±492) mg in the dapagliflozin group and 704 (±428) mg in patients assigned to metolazone. The mean (±standard deviation) decrease in weight at 96 h was 3.0 (2.5) kg with dapagliflozin compared to 3.6 (2.0) kg with metolazone [mean difference 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12,1.41 kg; P = 0.11]. Loop diuretic efficiency was less with dapagliflozin than with metolazone [mean 0.15 (0.12) vs. 0.25 (0.19); difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.17,0.01 kg; P = 0.10]. Changes in pulmonary congestion and volume assessment score were similar between treatments. Decreases in plasma sodium and potassium and increases in urea and creatinine were smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone. Serious adverse events were similar between treatments. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure and loop diuretic resistance, dapagliflozin was not more effective at relieving congestion than metolazone. Patients assigned to dapagliflozin received a larger cumulative dose of furosemide but experienced less biochemical upset than those assigned to metolazone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04860011.

Formulation, Characterization, and the Diuretic Effects of a New Intravenous Metolazone Emulsion.

OBJECTIVE: Acute decompensated heart failure is often treated with a combination of loop and thiazide-like diuretics. Of these thiazide-like diuretics, two common choices are intravenous chlorothiazide or oral metolazone. Metolazone is more potent and has a longer duration of action, but since it is an oral formulation, it has a longer on-set time as compared to chlorothiazide. In addition, metolazone is poorly water-soluble, thereby rendering intravenous formulation more challenging. To address these issues, we proposed the formulation of a solvent-free metolazone emulsion for intravenous administration. METHODS: An oil-in-water emulsion containing 1 mg/mL of metolazone was formulated by homogenizing soybean oil and l-lecithin in water in the presence of optimized concentrations of glycerin with tween 80 or poloxamer 188 as surfactant. The emulsion was characterized on the basis of particle size, zeta potential, morphology and metolazone release kinetics. The diuretic effect of the metolazone emulsion was evaluated in rats. RESULTS: The 1 mg/mL metolazone emulsion prepared with 5% tween 80 displayed the best physical stability. The emulsion exhibited a hydrodynamic diameter of 157.13±1.52 nm. About 93% of metolazone was released from the formulation within 2 h. The 2 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg dose of the metolazone emulsion increased urine output in the rats by 68.9 and 134%, respectively, as compared to control rats. Furthermore, the 4 mg/kg dose exhibited a 168.8%, 25.8%, and 150.9% increase in sodium, potassium, and chloride, respectively. CONCLUSION: This metolazone emulsion was capable of increasing urine volume output and demonstrated both natriuretic and kaliuretic properties.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Metolazone Compared to Chlorothiazide for Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

Treatment of volume overload in the setting of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is typically achieved through the use of loop diuretics. While they are highly effective, some patients may develop loop diuretic resistance. One strategy to overcome this scenario includes sequential nephron blockade with a thiazide-type diuretic; however, it is unknown which thiazide-type diuretic used in this setting is most effective. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the efficacy and safety of chlorothiazide with metolazone as add-on therapy in the setting of loop diuretic resistance for the treatment of ADHF. Literature searches were conducted through PubMed, Google Scholar, and Science Direct from inception through February 2020 using the following search terms alone or in combination: metolazone, chlorothiazide, acute decompensated heart failure, loop diuretic, and urine output. All English-language prospective and retrospective trials and abstracts comparing metolazone to chlorothiazide for the treatment of ADHF were evaluated. Studies were included if they analyzed urine output for at least 24 hours in patients with ADHF. Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate pooled effect size by using a random-effect model. Primary outcomes included net and total urine output. Secondary outcomes included commonly reported safety outcomes. Four studies comparing the use of metolazone to chlorothiazide as an adjunct to loop diuretics to treat ADHF were included in the evaluation. Metolazone was as effective as chlorothiazide to augment loop diuretic therapy in ADHF in most studies with no pooled difference in net or total urine output. However, there were notable differences in baseline loop diuretic dosing, ejection fraction, renal function, race, and endpoint timing across studies. Adverse effects were commonly observed and included electrolyte abnormalities, change in renal function, and hypotension but were comparable between groups. Metolazone is as effective as chlorothiazide as add-on to loop diuretics in treating ADHF without an increase in safety concerns.

Comparing the sodium excreting efficacy of furosemide and indapamide combination against furosemide and metolazone combination in congestive heart failure patients: A randomized control trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of indapamide-furosemide combination against metolazone-furosemide combination in refractory heart failure patients. METHODS: The randomised controlled trial was conducted at Rehman Medical Institute, Peshawar, Pakistan, from January 1 to June 30, 2018, and comprised refractory heart failure patients who were randomised into two groups using lottery method Group 1 received intravenous furosemide 40mg Q12hr with metolazone 5mg Q24hr, while group 2 received intravenous furosemide 40mg Q12hr with indapamide 2.5mg Q24hr. Both groups were assessed for urinary sodium excretion, total urine output and decrease in weight on day one, day three and day five of admission. SPSS 22 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients, there were 75(50%) in each of the two groups. Mean age in group 1 was 64.8}11.2 years, while it was 66.3}12.9 years in group 2. Both groups showed increased urinary sodium excretion and total urine output (p>0.05). Hypokalaemia was the most common adverse event 66%. Mean hospital stay was not significantly different between the groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant differences between adverse events and efficacy between patients receiving either indapamide-furosemide combination or metolazone-furosemide combination.

Intravenous Chlorothiazide Versus Enteral Metolazone to Augment Loop Diuretic Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: In cases of loop diuretic resistance in the intensive care unit (ICU), recommendations for a specific second-line thiazide agent are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of intravenous chlorothiazide (CTZ) and enteral metolazone (MET) on urine output (UOP) when added to furosemide monotherapy therapy in critically ill adults. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in the medical, surgical, and cardiothoracic ICUs of a quaternary medical center. The primary outcome was change in UOP induced by the study interventions compared with furosemide alone. Secondary outcomes included onset of diuresis, eventual need for hemodialysis, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients (58 in CTZ, 64 in MET) were included. When added to furosemide monotherapy, CTZ induced a greater change in UOP at 24 hours compared with MET (2405 vs 1646 mL, respectively; P = 0.01). CTZ also caused a more rapid dieresis: 1463 mL total UOP in the first 6 hours compared with 796 mL in the MET group ( P < 0.01). There were no differences found regarding ICU length of stay, need for renal replacement therapy, or survival to discharge. The CTZ arm required more potassium supplementation to maintain normokalemia (median 100 vs 57 mEq in MET; P = 0.02) and carried a higher cost (mean $97 vs $8, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Both CTZ and MET induced significant increases in UOP. CTZ induced a greater and more rapid change and was associated with higher cost and greater need for potassium replacement. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish whether a preferable thiazide diuretic exists in this setting.

Design and rationale for the Acute Congestive Heart Failure Urgent Care Evaluation: The ACUTE Study.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading reasons for emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalization. However, externally validated risk algorithms for acute prognostication of heart failure patients are not available. Thus, many low-risk patients are hospitalized and some high-risk patients are discharged home, which, in some cases, may lead to death. OBJECTIVES: The first objective of the ACUTE study is to perform a prospective validation of the Emergency Heart failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG), which is a risk score derived to predict 7-day mortality in the ED setting. The second objective is to independently validate the 30-day model extension of the risk score (EHMRG30-ST) in the same cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with HF presenting to the ED will be recruited with a waiver of informed consent as a minimal risk study. The ED physician will calculate the EHMRG 7-day risk score, but treatment decisions will not be influenced by the predictive models. Follow-up will be obtained using probabilistic linkage with the Registered Persons Database of vital statistics, whereby deaths will be ascertained. We will examine mortality rates according to EHMRG and EHMRG30-ST algorithms. We will also compare physician-judged risk estimates, based on clinical judgment alone, with the EHMRG score. CONCLUSION: The ACUTE study will determine if a retrospectively derived algorithm for simultaneous estimation of 7-day and 30-day mortality risk can accurately identify low- and high-risk patients with acute HF and improve upon physician-judged risk estimation.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Chlorothiazide versus Oral Metolazone in Patients with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Loop Diuretic Resistance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) chlorothiazide versus oral metolazone when added to loop diuretics in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and loop diuretic resistance. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Large urban academic medical center. PATIENTS: Adults admitted with ADHF between 2005 and 2015 who had loop diuretic resistance, defined as administration of IV furosemide at a dose of 160 mg/day or higher (or an equivalent dose of IV bumetanide), during hospitalization, and who then received at least one dose of IV chlorothiazide (88 patients) or oral metolazone (89 patients) to augment diuresis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point was a change in 24-hour net urine output (UOP) from before to after thiazide-type diuretic administration, and the study was designed to test for the noninferiority of metolazone. Safety end points included changes in renal function and electrolyte concentrations. The mean dose of IV loop diuretic therapy (in IV furosemide equivalents) at baseline (before thiazide-type diuretic administration) was higher in the chlorothiazide group (mean ± SD 318.9 ± 127.7 vs 268.4 ± 97.6 mg/day in the metolazone group, p=0.004), but net UOP was similar (mean ± SD 877.0 ± 1189.0 ml in the chlorothiazide group vs 710.6 ± 1145.9 ml in the metolazone group, p=0.344). Mean doses of chlorothiazide and metolazone were 491 ± 282 mg and 5.8 ± 3.5 mg, respectively. Following thiazide-type diuretic administration, net UOP improved to a similar degree (2274.6 ± 1443.0 ml vs 2030.2 ± 1725.0 ml in the chlorothiazide and metolazone groups, respectively, p=0.308). For the primary efficacy end point, metolazone met the threshold for noninferiority by producing a net UOP of 1319.6 ± 1517.4 ml versus 1397.6 ± 1370.7 ml for chlorothiazide (p=0.026 for noninferiority). No significant differences in renal function were observed between the groups. Although hypokalemia was more frequent in the chlorothiazide group (75% with chlorothiazide vs 60.7% with metolazone, p=0.045), no significant differences in the rates of severe hypokalemia or other electrolyte abnormalities were observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: Oral metolazone was noninferior to IV chlorothiazide for enhancing net UOP in patients with ADHF and loop diuretic resistance and was similarly safe with regard to renal function and electrolyte abnormalities. Given the significant cost disparity between the two agents, these findings suggest that oral metolazone may be considered a first-line option in this patient population.

Efficacy of Intravenous Chlorothiazide for Refractory Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Unresponsive to Adjunct Metolazone.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of intravenous chlorothiazide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) who were determined to be loop diuretic resistant and refractory to metolazone. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with patients serving as their own controls. SETTING: Large, academic, tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Forty-five patients with ADHF who had an inadequate response to high-dose loop diuretics and then received at least one dose of oral metolazone 5 mg or greater (metolazone index dose) followed by at least one dose of intravenous chlorothiazide 500 mg (chlorothiazide index dose) if the response to metolazone was considered inadequate, according to the institutional protocol, between February 4, 2013, and February 28, 2015, were included. If multiple doses of metolazone were administered, the last dose given before the chlorothiazide index dose was considered the index dose; the metolazone index dose had to have been administered more than 2 hours before the chlorothiazide index dose. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data for a total of 90 diuretic doses (45 metolazone, 45 chlorothiazide) were included in the analysis. The median dose of loop diuretic in intravenous furosemide equivalents given over the 24-hour period before the metolazone index dose was 400 mg. The average length of stay was 34.7 days, and in-hospital mortality was 35.6% (16/45 patients). The primary end point of a net-negative urine output of 500 ml or greater during the 12 hours after the index dose occurred in 42.2% (19/45 patients) and 35.5% (16/45 patients) for the chlorothiazide and metolazone doses, respectively (p=0.581). The median 12-hour urine output following administration of metolazone was 810 ml (interquartile range [IQR] 866 ml) versus 1075 ml (IQR 940 ml) following administration of chlorothiazide (p=0.363). Compared with metolazone, the chlorothiazide doses did not result in an increase in urine output of at least 500 ml during the 12 hours following the dose relative to the 12 hours before the dose (31.1% vs 22.2%, p=0.754). No significant difference in achievement of net-negative urine output of 500 ml or greater during the 12 hours following the chlorothiazide or metolazone dose was noted (42.2% for chlorothiazide vs 35.5% for metolazone, p=0.581). CONCLUSION: The addition of intravenous chlorothiazide did not result in improved diuresis in patients with ADHF determined to be refractory to loop diuretics and adjunctive oral metolazone.

Comparison of metolazone versus chlorothiazide in acute decompensated heart failure with diuretic resistance.

AIMS: Sequential nephron blockade with thiazide-like diuretics is a strategy used to overcome diuretic resistance in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), but head-to-head studies are lacking and equipoise exists regarding the preferred thiazide-like diuretic in this setting. We thus compared the effectiveness of oral metolazone versus intravenous (IV) chlorothiazide as add-on therapy to loop diuretics in hospitalized patients with ADHF and renal dysfunction. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral metolazone versus IV chlorothiazide as add-on therapy to loop diuretics in patients hospitalized with ADHF and renal dysfunction. The primary endpoint was net urine output (UOP) at 72 h after initiation of thiazide-like diuretics. Safety endpoints included worsening renal function, hypotension, and electrolyte abnormalities. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were enrolled with 33 patients receiving metolazone and 22 patients receiving chlorothiazide. There was no difference in median net UOP at 72 h in those receiving metolazone (4828 mL, interquartile range [IQR] 2800-7209 mL) compared to chlorothiazide (3779 mL, IQR 1885-6535 mL) (P = 0.16). There was no difference in hypotension, worsening renal function, hyponatremia, or hypokalemia (P = NS for all comparisons). Hospital length of stay was shorter in the metolazone cohort (median 7 days) compared to chlorothiazide (median 15 days), suggesting the chlorothiazide cohort was likely sicker. CONCLUSION: Sequential nephron blockade with either metolazone or chlorothiazide appears to be efficacious and safe in ADHF, renal dysfunction, and diuretic resistance. Given the considerable cost difference favoring oral metolazone, larger randomized studies are warranted to confirm our findings and to exclude the possibility of confounding by indication.

Diuretic exposure in premature infants from 1997 to 2011.

OBJECTIVE: Diuretics are often prescribed off-label to premature infants, particularly to prevent or treat bronchopulmonary dysplasia. We examined their use and safety in this group. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of infants < 32 weeks gestation and < 1,500 g birth weight exposed to diuretics in 333 neonatal intensive care units from 1997 to 2011. We examined use of acetazolamide, amiloride, bumetanide, chlorothiazide, diazoxide, ethacrynic acid, furosemide, hydrochlorothiazide, mannitol, metolazone, or spironolactone combination. Respiratory support and fraction of inspired oxygen on the first day of each course of diuretic use were identified. RESULTS: About 37% (39,357/107,542) infants were exposed to at least one diuretic; furosemide was the most commonly used (93% with ≥ 1 recorded dose), followed by spironolactone, chlorothiazide, hydrochlorothiazide, bumetanide, and acetazolamide. About 74% patients were exposed to one diuretic at a time, 19% to two diuretics simultaneously, and 6% to three diuretics simultaneously. The most common combination was furosemide/spironolactone, followed by furosemide/chlorothiazide and chlorothiazide/spironolactone. Many infants were not receiving mechanical ventilation on the first day of each new course of furosemide (47%), spironolactone (69%), chlorothiazide (61%), and hydrochlorothiazide (68%). Any adverse event occurred on 42 per 1,000 infant-days for any diuretic and 35 per 1,000 infant-days for furosemide. Any serious adverse event occurred in 3.8 for any diuretic and 3.2 per 1,000 infant-days for furosemide. The most common laboratory abnormality associated with diuretic exposure was thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: Despite no Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indication and little safety data, over one-third of premature infants in our population were exposed to a diuretic, many with minimal respiratory support.

Comparison of bumetanide- and metolazone-based diuretic regimens to furosemide in acute heart failure.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data exist comparing the efficacy and safety of bumetanide- or metolazone-based diuretic regimens to furosemide in acute heart failure (HF). Our purpose was to evaluate the comparative effect on urine output (UO) and renal function between these regimens. METHODS: A retrospective study of hospitalized HF patients treated with continuous infusion furosemide (CIF), combination furosemide plus metolazone (F + M), or continuous infusion bumetanide (CIB). Primary end points were between regimen comparisons for change in mean hourly UO versus baseline and incidence of worsening renal function. RESULTS: Data on 242 patients with acute HF (age 58 ± 12 years, 63% male, left ventricular ejection fraction 38% ± 17%) were analyzed (160 CIF, 42 F + M, 40 CIB). The mean duration of diuretic regimens was 41 ± 32 hours. Compared to baseline, all regimens increased mean hourly UO (P < .0001 for all), with greater increases with F + M (109 ± 171 mL) and CIB (90 ± 90 mL) compared to CIF (48 ± 103 mL; P = .009). Incidence of worsening renal function was not different between regimens; however, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) tended to increase more with F + M (4.4 ± 9.8 mg/dL) and CIB (4.3 ± 9.7 mg/dL) than CIF (1.8 ± 10.8 mg/dL), P = .09. The incidence of hyponatremia was higher with F + M and CIB. Differences in UO, BUN, and hyponatremia were retained in the subgroup analysis limited to patients with baseline serum creatinine <1.5 mg/dL, where renal function between the groups was not different. CONCLUSION: Compared to CIF, F + M or CIB was associated with greater increases in UO. No difference in the incidence of worsening renal function was found; however, electrolyte abnormalities may be more prevalent when furosemide is combined with metolazone or when bumetanide is used. These therapeutic differences warrant prospective study.

Hydroxychloroquine-induced hyperpigmentation: the staining pattern.

We report two cases of hydroxychloroquine-induced hyperpigmentation presenting in a 50-year-old Caucasian female (case 1) and a 78-year-old female (case 2), both receiving 400 mg per day. Case 1 had an arthritis predominant undifferentiated connective tissue disease, which was treated with hydroxychloroquine for 4-5 years. She presented with a mottled, reticulated macular gray pigmentation involving the upper back and shoulders. Case 2 had a history of systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis, treated with hydroxychloroquine for 1.5 years. She presented to the hospital for treatment of constrictive cardiomyopathy and was noted to have a blue macular pigmentation involving the right temple. The biopsies from both patients showed superficial dermal, yellow-brown, non-refractile and coarsely granular pigment deposition. A Fontana-Masson stain highlighted some of these granules, while the Perl's iron stain was negative. Rare, previous reports of hyperpigmentation indicate the presence of both melanin and hemosiderin in patients being treated with antimalarial medication. To our knowledge, this staining pattern for hydroxychloroquine has not been previously reported in the literature and supports that hydroxychloroquine, in addition to chloroquine, binds to melanin.

Treatment of diuretic refractory pleural effusions with bevacizumab in four patients with primary systemic amyloidosis.

Refractory pleural effusions present a challenging management problem and are associated with a poor prognosis in patients with primary systemic amyloidosis (AL). We report a series of four patients with AL who presented with bilateral pleural effusions that were refractory to diuretic therapy. After treatment with bevacizumab, an antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody, three of the four patients had improvement in their pleural effusions, peripheral edema, and functional status. Additional studies are needed to further define the role of bevacizumab in the management of this group of patients.

Beneficial effects of metolazone in a rat model of preeclampsia.

Preeclampsia is a disorder that continues to exact a significant toll with respect to maternal morbidity and mortality as well as fetal wastage. Furthermore, the treatment of this disorder has not changed significantly in 50 years and is unsatisfactory. The use of diuretics in this syndrome is controversial because there is a concern related to potential baleful effects of volume contraction leading to a possible further decrement in the perfusion of the maternal-fetal unit. Metolazone is a diuretic/antihypertensive agent, which has a therapeutic effect on blood pressure (BP) in human essential hypertension without causing a natriuresis. We administered the drug in nondiuretic doses in a rat model of preeclampsia previously developed in this laboratory. The drug reduced BP without an accompanying natriuresis. Although there was a trend toward an improvement in intrauterine growth restriction, as determined by litter size and the number of pups demonstrating malformations, the values did not reach statistical significance. We conclude that metolazone, in low dosage, is an effective antihypertensive in this rat model. These studies have implications for the treatment of the human disorder.

Combination therapy with metolazone and loop diuretics in outpatients with refractory heart failure: an observational study and review of the literature.

UNLABELLED: Metolazone is a potent thiazide-like diuretic. It is recommended in severe congestive heart failure (HF). We conducted a review of the existing literature and found that the available information on the use of metolazone in HF is based on studies containing less than 250 patients in total. Nevertheless, metolazone is widely used, often in combination with a loop diuretic. Absorption of metolazone seems to be reduced in HF. Metolazone produces a diuretic response despite a low glomerular filtration rate. A wide dose range of metolazone has been investigated (< or =2.5 to 200 mg), leaving no clear dosing recommendation. However, in most studies a low starting dose (< or =5 mg) was used. We further report an observational study on 21 patients with refractory systolic HF from our specialized outpatient HF clinic. The aim was to evaluate the effects of metolazone in combination with a loop diuretic in contemporary HF patients. RESULTS: We registered 42 episodes of treatment with metolazone. The maximal dose of metolazone was 5 mg. NYHA functional class improved. A significant reduction during treatment in weight, blood pressure, plasma-sodium and -potassium was seen whereas plasma-BUN and -creatinine increased significantly. Clinically important hypokalemia (<2.5 mM) or hyponatremia (<125 mM) were observed during 10% of the treatment episodes. CONCLUSION: The literature review and the observational study support the use of low-dose metolazone (< or =5 mg) on top of oral loop diuretics, as an effective and relatively safe treatment in contemporary outpatients with refractory HF.

How much responsibility should heart failure nurses take?

This article examines the emerging role of the heart failure nurse and the responsibilities and educational and training requirements surrounding such a role. There may be variations in the role and its responsibilities in different health care settings. However the principles are similar and include: history taking, carrying out clinical assessment and making appropriate decisions about patient management within the context of practice. An example of this is nurse supervision of adjusting and titration of medication in a clinic setting or in the patient's own home. A major challenge to this role is defining the limitations and scope of practice. Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are generally a frail, elderly population, and often have significant other co-morbidities. They can be on multiple medications and are frequently prescribed sub-optimal doses of evidence-based medication. Many patients are not managed by specialists, thus creating a huge potential for improved management.

Metolazone and its role in edema management.

Metolazone is commonly administered in conjunction with a loop diuretic to manage volume overload in patients otherwise resistant to loop diuretic therapy alone. Metolazone is a thiazide-type diuretic that is characterized by slow and sometimes erratic absorption when administered as the Zaroxylyn product. This absorptive profile together with the large volume of distribution and high degree of renal clearance for metolazone provide the pharmacologic basis for a favorable diuretic combination effect. Zaroxylyn should always be administered cautiously and only with a means of surveillance allowing the patient's weight to be carefully monitored so as to avoid excessive diuresis. If an excessive diuresis occurs with a metolazone and loop diuretic combination both drugs should be stopped temporarily. The temptation should be avoided to simply reduce the doses of either metolazone or the loop diuretic as a means to controlling an active diuresis.