Although diuretics are essential to optimize volume status in patients with heart
failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [
[1]
], safety and benefits of prolonged diuretic treatment are uncertain, in particular
on patients with chronic and compensated HFrEF. In facts, diuretics can increase the
neuro-humoral activation in HFrEF [
- Ponikowski Piotr
- Voors Adriaan A.
- Anker Stefan D.
- Bueno Héctor
- Cleland John G.F.
- Coats Andrew J.S.
- et al.
ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure
2016: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure
of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution
of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.
Eur Heart J. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128
[2]
], determine electrolyte disturbances [
[3]
] and acute renal insufficiency [
[4]
]. On the contrary, Hopper et al. identified seven studies of diuretic withdrawal (DW)
in stable chronic HF, in which clinical decompensation was more frequent in the DW
group [
[5]
]. Our hypothesis was that diuretic therapy could be safely suspended in patients with
HFrEF after adequate therapeutic neuro-hormonal antagonism [
[6]
]. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed our cohort of HFrEF outpatients with a twofold
aim: first, to asses if DW is safe in patients with HFrEF and second, to identify
clinical, biochemical or echocardiographic parameters associated to DW among HFrEF
patients regularly followed-up at our outpatient's clinic. The study was conducted
in our tertiary level HF clinical center. All ambulatory patients referred from November
2011 through September 2014 at our center were considered for recruitment. Exclusion
criteria were as follows: (I) hospitalization for HF within 30 days before ambulatory
evaluation, (II) myocardial revascularization and/or resynchronization therapy within
180 days before ambulatory visit, (III) congenital heart disease, (IV) severe valve
heart disease. Overall, 216 consecutive clinically stable HFrEF patients (ejection
fraction HF ≤ 35%) were evaluated for retrospective enrollment. Among them, 26 patients were excluded,
since they were not taking diuretics. Eventually, 190 patients were recruited and
stratified according to diuretics continuation: no withdrawal group (NWG), N = 169 (89%), and diuretics withdrawal group (WG) N = 21 (11%) (Fig. 1S in supplementary materials). Furosemide was the only diuretic used. Patients were
assessed at baseline visit. Medical history, physical exam, 12-lead electrocardiogram
and laboratory analysis comprehensive of N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptides
(NT-proBNP) and highly sensitive troponin essay were obtained. To assess the safety
of DW, furosemide dose in WG was tapered down (steps of 25 mg) at each visit usually at the sixth month re-evaluation, according to the following
criteria: 1) no symptoms or signs of congestion were evident at the clinical assessment
and 2) NT-proBNP trend was in downturn. A standard 2-Dimensional and Doppler transthoracic
echocardiogram was performed at baseline visit and repeated in case of worsening clinical
conditions. Baseline characteristics between WG and NWG were compared using Mann-Whitney
U test and Fisher exact test. Changes from baseline characteristics at follow-up were
tested by paired t-or McNemar test. Univariate Logistic regression was used to identify
baseline characteristics associated to diuretic withdrawal, while ROC analysis identified
best cut-off values to differentiate WG and NWG groups. Two models of multivariate
analysis were built: one including baseline echocardiographic parameters and the other
including NT-proBNP and TAPSE. Furosemide dosage at baseline was forced in both models
using SAS JMP 9 software package. NWG patients were older, had higher body mass index
(BMI), had more frequently history of arterial hypertension, atrial fibrillation and
were more commonly cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter
defibrillator (ICD) carriers. No differences were found between the two groups concerning
medical treatment except for diuretics. According to univariate logistic regression
analysis, younger age, higher BMI, history of arterial hypertension, the presence
of ICD and diuretic dose were associated with lower chance of discontinuing diuretics
(Table 1). Patients in WG had lower NT-proBNP levels (Table 2). According to univariate regression analysis: NT-proBNP < 550 pg/ml and estimated glomerular filtration rate were associated with DW. Regarding
echocardiography findings a LVEDD > 60 mm, TAPSE ≥ 20 mm were associated to DW (Table 2).
Table 1Patients' demographics and clinical characteristics.
NWG | WG | p-Value | OR (p-value) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
(N = 169) | (N = 21) | |||
Age, years | 60.9 ± 8.7 | 56.3 ± 13.7 | 0.041 | 1.04 (1.00–1.09) |
Females, % | 35 (21) | 3 (14) | 0.47 | 1.56 (0.49–6.95) |
Etiology of heart failure | ||||
Ischemic cardiopathy, % | 71 (42) | 9 (43) | 1.00 | 1.03 (0.41–2.58) |
Hypertensive/non-ischemic, % | 87 (51) | 12 (57) | 0.65 | 0.79 (0.30–1.97) |
Valve disease, % | 11 (7) | 0 (0) | 0.61 | |
BMI, % | 27.7 ± 3.7 | 24.7 ± 3.4 | 0.0003 | 1.26 (1.11–1.46) |
NYHA class III/IV, % | 33 (18) | 2 (9) | 0.28 | 1.92 (0.61–8.49) |
CRT % | 48 (28) | 0 (0) | 0.002 | |
Atrial fibrillation, % | 21 (12) | 0 (0) | 0.22 | |
Intra-cardiac defibrillator, % | 135 (80) | 10 (48) | 0.002 | 4.36 (1.70–11.32) |
Diabetes, % | 40 (24) | 2 (10) | 0.11 | 2.94 (0.80–18.98) |
Hypertension, % | 52 (31) | 1 (2) | 0.004 | 8.88 (1.77–161) |
COPD, % | 21 (12) | 3 (14) | 0.73 | 0.85 (0.81–7.35) |
Drugs | ||||
Furosemide, mg | 169 (100) | 21 (100) | ||
Furosemide mean dosage, mg | 119.2 ± 149.7 | 24.1 ± 21 | < 0.0001 | 1.04 (1.02–1.08) |
Spironolactone, % | 106 (62) | 11 (52) | 0.36 | 1.52 (0.60–3.82) |
ACE Inhibitor/ARB, % | 160 (94) | 20 (95) | 0.91 | 0.88 (0.04–5.10) |
Beta-Blockers, % | 151 (89) | 18 (86) | 0.62 | 1.39 (0.30–4.66) |
Ivabradine, % | 8 (5) | 0 (0) | 0.60 | |
Digoxin, % | 24 (14) | 4 (19) | 0.56 | 0.70 (0.23–2.60) |
NWG = no withdrawal group; WG = withdrawal group; BMI = Body Mass Index; NYHA = New York Heart Association; CRT = Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; COPD = Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; ACE = Angiotensin Converting Enzyme; ARB = Angiotensin Receptor Blockers.
Table 2Biochemical markers and echocardiographic data.
NWG | WG | p-value | OR (p-value) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
(N = 169) | (N = 21) | |||
Biochemical markers | ||||
NT-proBNP, pg/ml | 1.702 ± 1.863 | 564 ± 0.623 | < 0.001 | 2.40 (1.35–5.62) |
NT-proBNP <550, pg/ml | 57 (34) | 14 (67) | 0.005 | 0.26 (0.09–0.66) |
High sensitivity troponin I, pg/ml | 29.6 ± 94.1 | 13.5 ± 23.7 | 0.24 | 1.00 (0.99–1.04) |
Blood urea nitrogen, mg/dl | 47.4 ± 21.1 | 39.2 ± 11.4 | 0.09 | 1.02 (0.99–1.07) |
Creatinine, mg/dL | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 0.15 | 3.38 (0.60–26.24) |
Glomerular Filtration Rate | 62.7 ± 17.3 | 74 ± 18.9 | 0.009 | 0.96 (0.93–0.99) |
Hemoglobin, gr/dL | 13.9 ± 1.6 | 14.2 ± 1.4 | 0.37 | 0.86 (0.62–1.18) |
Serum sodium, mmol/l | 137.0 ± 3.3 | 137.8 ± 3.5 | 0.49 | 0.92 (0.76–1.09) |
Serum potassium, mmol/l | 4.0 ± 0.3 | 4.2 ± 0.5 | 0.035 | 0.25 (0.06–0.90) |
Echocardiographic data | ||||
LVEDD, mm | 64.1 ± 7.3 | 58.6 ± 7.3 | 0.001 | 1.11 (1.04–1.19) |
LVEDD <60 mm | 38 (23) | 13 (62) | 0.0005 | 0.18 (0.06–0.47) |
LV ejection fraction, % | 25.7 ± 5.7 | 28.3 ± 5.9 | 0.045 | 0.92 (0.84–0.99) |
Mitral regurgitation (Vena contracta, mm) | 2.1 ± 1.4 | 1.7 ± 1.2 | 0.15 | 1.28 (0.91–1.87) |
E/A ratio | 1.65 ± 1.25 | 1.23 ± 0.78 | 0.09 | 1.47 (0.93–2.66) |
E/E’ | 15.3 ± 7.7 | 11.8 ± 5.4 | 0.0342 | 1.08 (1.00–1.19) |
LAV Index, mL/m2 | 50.3 ± 23 | 37.7 ± 13.4 | 0.005 | 1.03 (1.01–1.07) |
sPAP | 28.2 ± 13.3 | 24.7 ± 7.1 | 0.26 | 1.02 (0.98–1.07) |
TAPSE, mm | 18.3 ± 4.1 | 21.2 ± 3.6 | 0.009 | 0.82 (0.72–0.93) |
TAPSE ≥20 mm | 65 (41) | 16 (80) | 0.001 | 0.17 (0.04–0.49) |
Central venous pressure (IVC, mm Hg) | 7.1 ± 4.3 | 6 ± 2.9 | 0.24 | 1.08 (0.95–1.29) |
NWG = no withdrawal group; WG = withdrawal group; NT-proBNP = N-Terminal proBrain Natriuretic Peptide; LVEDD = Left Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter; LV = Left Ventricular; E/A Ratio = Trans-mitral Doppler flow early wave velocity/Trans-mitral Doppler flow late wave
velocity Ratio; E/E’ = Trans-mitral Doppler flow early wave velocity/ Early pulsed wave tissue Doppler velocities
at the mitral annulus; LAV = Left Atrial Volume; sPAP = sistolic pulmonary artery pressure; TAPSE = Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion; IVC = inferior caval vein.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to European Journal of Internal MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2016: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.Eur Heart J. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128
- Untreated heart failure: clinical and neuroendocrine effects of introducing diuretics.Br Heart J. 1987; 57: 17-22
- Morbus diureticus in the elderly: epidemic overuse of a widely applied group of drugs.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013; 14: 437-442
- Cardiorenal syndrome.Heart Fail Clin. 2014; 10: 251-280
- Can medications be safely withdrawn in patients with stable chronic heart failure? Systematic review and meta-analysis.J Card Fail. 2014; 20: 522-532
- Clinical and neurohumoral consequences of diuretic withdrawal in patients with chronic, stabilized heart failure and systolic dysfunction.Eur J Heart Fail. 2005; 7: 892-898
- Can multiple previous treatment-requiring rejections affect biventricular myocardial function in heart transplant recipients? A two-dimensional speckle-tracking study.Int J Cardiol. 2016; 209: 54-56
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 05, 2017
Accepted:
March 30,
2017
Received in revised form:
March 29,
2017
Received:
March 22,
2017
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.