RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists regarding efficacy and safety of diuretic regimens in ambulatory, congestion-refractory, chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the potency and safety of commonly used diuretic regimens in CHF patients. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, open-label, crossover study conducted in NYHA functional class II to IV CHF patients, treated in an ambulatory day-care unit. Each patient received 3 different diuretic regimens: intravenous (IV) furosemide 250 mg; IV furosemide 250 mg plus oral metolazone 5 mg; and IV furosemide 250 mg plus IV acetazolamide 500 mg. Treatments were administered once a week, in 1 of 6 randomized sequences. The primary endpoint was total sodium excretion, and the secondary was total urinary volume excreted, both measured for 6 hours post-treatment initiation. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients were recruited. Administration of furosemide plus metolazone resulted in the highest weight of sodium excreted, 4,691 mg (95% CI: 4,153-5,229 mg) compared with furosemide alone, 3,835 mg (95% CI: 3,279-4,392 mg; P = 0.015) and to furosemide plus acetazolamide 3,584 mg (95% CI: 3,020-4,148 mg; P = 0.001). Furosemide plus metolazone resulted in 1.84 L of urine (95% CI: 1.63-2.05 L), compared with 1.58 L (95% CI: 1.37-1.8); P = 0.039 collected following administration of furosemide plus acetazolamide and 1.71 L (95% CI: 1.49-1.93 L) following furosemide alone. The incidence of worsening renal function was significantly higher when adding metolazone (39%) to furosemide compared with furosemide alone (16%) and to furosemide plus acetazolamide (2.6%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ambulatory CHF patients, furosemide plus metolazone resulted in a significantly higher natriuresis compared with IV furosemide alone or furosemide plus acetazolamide.