Comparison of Bumetanide- and Metolazone-Based Diuretic Regimens to Furosemide in Acute Heart Failure

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

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. 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. 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. 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.