{"title":"Evaluation of Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated with Bumetanide versus Torsemide.","authors":"Kazuhiko Kido, Mohammad Al-Mamun","doi":"10.1159/000545876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Introduction Limited evidence guides clinicians regarding the agent selection between bumetanide and torsemide in patients with heart failure (HF). The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of bumetanide and torsemide in patients with HF. Methods Patients aged > 18 years with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) receiving either bumetanide or torsemide were included from the TriNetX research network. Patients with end-stage renal disease were excluded from this study. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included all-cause hospitalization or emergency department visits, acute kidney injury, or hypokalemia over one- year follow-up period. Results After propensity score matching, 16,277 patients in each group were included. The use of bumetanide was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (19.7 vs. 16.0 %; OR 1.28; 95% CI [1,21, 1.36]) compared to the torsemide group. The use of bumetanide was also significantly associated with higher risks of all-cause hospitalization or emergency department visits (53.3 vs. 48.3%; OR 1.22 95% CI [1.17, 1.28]), acute kidney injury (33.4 vs. 27.1 %; OR 1.35; 95% CI [1.29, 1.42]), and hypokalemia (16.6 vs. 13.7%; OR 1.21, 95% CI [1.17, 1.33]) compared to the torsemide group. Conclusion The use of torsemide in patients with HFrEF is associated with lower risks of clinical outcomes than bumetanide. Further investigation of this association is warranted in clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":9391,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545876","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction Limited evidence guides clinicians regarding the agent selection between bumetanide and torsemide in patients with heart failure (HF). The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profile of bumetanide and torsemide in patients with HF. Methods Patients aged > 18 years with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) receiving either bumetanide or torsemide were included from the TriNetX research network. Patients with end-stage renal disease were excluded from this study. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included all-cause hospitalization or emergency department visits, acute kidney injury, or hypokalemia over one- year follow-up period. Results After propensity score matching, 16,277 patients in each group were included. The use of bumetanide was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (19.7 vs. 16.0 %; OR 1.28; 95% CI [1,21, 1.36]) compared to the torsemide group. The use of bumetanide was also significantly associated with higher risks of all-cause hospitalization or emergency department visits (53.3 vs. 48.3%; OR 1.22 95% CI [1.17, 1.28]), acute kidney injury (33.4 vs. 27.1 %; OR 1.35; 95% CI [1.29, 1.42]), and hypokalemia (16.6 vs. 13.7%; OR 1.21, 95% CI [1.17, 1.33]) compared to the torsemide group. Conclusion The use of torsemide in patients with HFrEF is associated with lower risks of clinical outcomes than bumetanide. Further investigation of this association is warranted in clinical trials.
期刊介绍:
''Cardiology'' features first reports on original clinical, preclinical and fundamental research as well as ''Novel Insights from Clinical Experience'' and topical comprehensive reviews in selected areas of cardiovascular disease. ''Editorial Comments'' provide a critical but positive evaluation of a recent article. Papers not only describe but offer critical appraisals of new developments in non-invasive and invasive diagnostic methods and in pharmacologic, nutritional and mechanical/surgical therapies. Readers are thus kept informed of current strategies in the prevention, recognition and treatment of heart disease. Special sections in a variety of subspecialty areas reinforce the journal''s value as a complete record of recent progress for all cardiologists, internists, cardiac surgeons, clinical physiologists, pharmacologists and professionals in other areas of medicine interested in current activity in cardiovascular diseases.