Torsemide versus Furosemide in the Treatment of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia Pub Date : 2024-07-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.36660/abc.20230825
Larissa Teixeira, Nicole Felix, Denilsa D P Navalha, Rafael Ferreira, Mariana R C Clemente, Thiago Madeira, Alleh Nogueira, Lucas Tramujas
{"title":"Torsemide versus Furosemide in the Treatment of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Larissa Teixeira, Nicole Felix, Denilsa D P Navalha, Rafael Ferreira, Mariana R C Clemente, Thiago Madeira, Alleh Nogueira, Lucas Tramujas","doi":"10.36660/abc.20230825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Furosemide is the most used diuretic for volume overload symptoms in patients with heart failure (HF). Recent data suggested that torsemide may be superior to furosemide in this setting. However, whether this translates into better clinical outcomes in this population remains unclear. To assess whether torsemide is superior to furosemide in the setting of HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the efficacy of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with HF. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for eligible trials. Outcomes of interest were all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for HF (HHF), hospitalizations for all cardiovascular causes, all-cause mortality, and NYHA class improvement. Echocardiographic parameters were also assessed. We applied a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a 0.05 level of significance. 12 RCTs were included, comprising 4,115 patients. Torsemide significantly reduced HHF (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; p=0.002; I2=0%), hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88; p=0.0009; I2=0%), and improved LVEF (MD 4.51%; 95% CI, 2.94 to 6.07; p<0.0001; I2=0%) compared with furosemide. There was no significant difference in all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.00; p=0.04; I2=0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; p=0.73; I2=0%), NYHA class improvement (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.92-1.68; p=0.15; I2=0%), or NYHA class change (MD -0.04; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.16; p=0.70; I2=15%) between groups. Torsemide significantly reduced hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular causes, also improving LVEF.</p>","PeriodicalId":93887,"journal":{"name":"Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia","volume":"121 6","pages":"e20230825"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36660/abc.20230825","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Furosemide is the most used diuretic for volume overload symptoms in patients with heart failure (HF). Recent data suggested that torsemide may be superior to furosemide in this setting. However, whether this translates into better clinical outcomes in this population remains unclear. To assess whether torsemide is superior to furosemide in the setting of HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the efficacy of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with HF. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for eligible trials. Outcomes of interest were all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for HF (HHF), hospitalizations for all cardiovascular causes, all-cause mortality, and NYHA class improvement. Echocardiographic parameters were also assessed. We applied a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a 0.05 level of significance. 12 RCTs were included, comprising 4,115 patients. Torsemide significantly reduced HHF (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; p=0.002; I2=0%), hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88; p=0.0009; I2=0%), and improved LVEF (MD 4.51%; 95% CI, 2.94 to 6.07; p<0.0001; I2=0%) compared with furosemide. There was no significant difference in all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.00; p=0.04; I2=0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; p=0.73; I2=0%), NYHA class improvement (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.92-1.68; p=0.15; I2=0%), or NYHA class change (MD -0.04; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.16; p=0.70; I2=15%) between groups. Torsemide significantly reduced hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular causes, also improving LVEF.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
托西米与呋塞米治疗心力衰竭的比较:随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。
呋塞米是治疗心力衰竭(HF)患者容量超负荷症状最常用的利尿剂。最近的数据表明,在这种情况下,托塞米可能优于呋塞米。然而,这是否能为这类人群带来更好的临床疗效仍不清楚。为了评估托昔米在高血压情况下是否优于呋塞米。我们对在心房颤动患者中比较托瑞米与呋塞米疗效的 RCT 进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们在 PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science 上检索了符合条件的试验。研究结果包括全因住院、HF (HHF)住院、所有心血管原因住院、全因死亡率和 NYHA 分级改善。此外,还对超声心动图参数进行了评估。我们采用随机效应模型计算风险比 (RR) 和平均差 (MD),置信区间 (CI) 为 95%,显著性水平为 0.05。共纳入了 12 项研究,包括 4,115 名患者。托西米能明显降低 HHF(RR 0.60;95% CI,0.43-0.83;P=0.002;I2=0%)、心血管原因住院率(RR 0.72;95% CI,0.60-0.88;P=0.0009;I2=0%)并改善 LVEF(MD 4.51%;95% CI,2.94-6.07;P=0.002)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of Pulsed Field Ablation on Atrial Fibrillation. Is This a Causal Relationship? Mendelian Randomization as a Statistical Method for Unraveling Connections. Lyme Carditis: An Infectious Cause of Atrioventricular Block - A Case Report. Atrial Cardiomyopathy and Hypertension: Connections between Arterial Stiffness and Subclinical Atrial Arrhythmias. Potentially Inappropriate Cardioverter Defibrillator Implants in Secondary Prevention of Death.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1