托塞米vs速尿治疗充血性心力衰竭:死亡率和再住院的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Nino Gudushauri, Edgar Theodore Polintan, Irakli Lemonjava, Rajiv Hans Menghrajani, Pia Gabrielle Alfonso, Samir Shah, Zurab Azmaiparashvili, Kevin Bryan Lo, Janani Rangaswami
{"title":"托塞米vs速尿治疗充血性心力衰竭:死亡率和再住院的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Nino Gudushauri, Edgar Theodore Polintan, Irakli Lemonjava, Rajiv Hans Menghrajani, Pia Gabrielle Alfonso, Samir Shah, Zurab Azmaiparashvili, Kevin Bryan Lo, Janani Rangaswami","doi":"10.1080/00015385.2025.2460406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current guidelines suggest the use of loop diuretics as the preferred agent for decongestion in patients with heart failure. However, there is no clear evidence as to superiority of one loop diuretic over the other. The understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic superiority of torsemide over furosemide has generated the hypothesis that these features could result in better clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine whether the use of torsemide is associated with reduced risk for mortality and rehospitalizations in comparison to furosemide among patients with heart failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study involves a comprehensive search of literature from PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov of clinical trials addressing the use of torsemide vs. furosemide in patients with heart failure. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were used to measure association for all outcomes with inverse-variance weighting and random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search included 188 studies that were screened individually. A total of 24 studies were identified out of which 12 were excluded. The pooled risk ratio (RR) revealed all-cause mortality of 0.98 [0.87 to 1.10] with 0% heterogeneity, all cause rehospitalization of 0.95 [0.88 to 1.02] with 5% heterogeneity, and heart failure rehospitalization of 0.85 [0.52 to 1.38] with 55% heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Considering the evidence from pooled randomised trials, the use of torsemide compared to furosemide did not result in statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality or rehospitalization rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":6979,"journal":{"name":"Acta cardiologica","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Torsemide vs. furosemide in congestive heart failure: a systematic-review and meta-analysis on mortality and rehospitalization.\",\"authors\":\"Nino Gudushauri, Edgar Theodore Polintan, Irakli Lemonjava, Rajiv Hans Menghrajani, Pia Gabrielle Alfonso, Samir Shah, Zurab Azmaiparashvili, Kevin Bryan Lo, Janani Rangaswami\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00015385.2025.2460406\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current guidelines suggest the use of loop diuretics as the preferred agent for decongestion in patients with heart failure. However, there is no clear evidence as to superiority of one loop diuretic over the other. The understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic superiority of torsemide over furosemide has generated the hypothesis that these features could result in better clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine whether the use of torsemide is associated with reduced risk for mortality and rehospitalizations in comparison to furosemide among patients with heart failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study involves a comprehensive search of literature from PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov of clinical trials addressing the use of torsemide vs. furosemide in patients with heart failure. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were used to measure association for all outcomes with inverse-variance weighting and random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search included 188 studies that were screened individually. A total of 24 studies were identified out of which 12 were excluded. The pooled risk ratio (RR) revealed all-cause mortality of 0.98 [0.87 to 1.10] with 0% heterogeneity, all cause rehospitalization of 0.95 [0.88 to 1.02] with 5% heterogeneity, and heart failure rehospitalization of 0.85 [0.52 to 1.38] with 55% heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Considering the evidence from pooled randomised trials, the use of torsemide compared to furosemide did not result in statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality or rehospitalization rates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta cardiologica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta cardiologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00015385.2025.2460406\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta cardiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00015385.2025.2460406","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

摘要

背景:目前的指南建议使用环状利尿剂作为心力衰竭患者去充血的首选药物。然而,没有明确的证据表明一种利尿剂优于另一种利尿剂。对托尔塞米优于呋塞米的药代动力学和药效学优势的理解产生了这样的假设,即这些特征可能导致更好的临床结果。目的:确定在心力衰竭患者中,与呋塞米相比,托塞米的使用是否与死亡率和再住院风险降低相关。方法:该研究包括从PubMed、Cochrane CENTRAL和ClinicalTrials.gov上全面检索关于托塞米与呋塞米在心力衰竭患者中使用的临床试验的文献。合并风险比(Pooled risk ratio, RR)采用反方差加权和随机效应模型来衡量所有结果的相关性。结果:文献检索包括188项单独筛选的研究。共有24项研究被确定,其中12项被排除。合并风险比(RR)显示全因死亡率为0.98[0.87 ~ 1.10],异质性为0%;全因再住院率为0.95[0.88 ~ 1.02],异质性为5%;心力衰竭再住院率为0.85[0.52 ~ 1.38],异质性为55%。结论:从合并随机试验的证据来看,与呋塞米相比,托塞米的使用在全因死亡率或再住院率方面没有统计学上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Torsemide vs. furosemide in congestive heart failure: a systematic-review and meta-analysis on mortality and rehospitalization.

Background: Current guidelines suggest the use of loop diuretics as the preferred agent for decongestion in patients with heart failure. However, there is no clear evidence as to superiority of one loop diuretic over the other. The understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic superiority of torsemide over furosemide has generated the hypothesis that these features could result in better clinical outcomes.

Objectives: To determine whether the use of torsemide is associated with reduced risk for mortality and rehospitalizations in comparison to furosemide among patients with heart failure.

Methods: The study involves a comprehensive search of literature from PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov of clinical trials addressing the use of torsemide vs. furosemide in patients with heart failure. Pooled risk ratios (RR) were used to measure association for all outcomes with inverse-variance weighting and random effects model.

Results: The literature search included 188 studies that were screened individually. A total of 24 studies were identified out of which 12 were excluded. The pooled risk ratio (RR) revealed all-cause mortality of 0.98 [0.87 to 1.10] with 0% heterogeneity, all cause rehospitalization of 0.95 [0.88 to 1.02] with 5% heterogeneity, and heart failure rehospitalization of 0.85 [0.52 to 1.38] with 55% heterogeneity.

Conclusion: Considering the evidence from pooled randomised trials, the use of torsemide compared to furosemide did not result in statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality or rehospitalization rates.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta cardiologica
Acta cardiologica 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
115
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Acta Cardiologica is an international journal. It publishes bi-monthly original, peer-reviewed articles on all aspects of cardiovascular disease including observational studies, clinical trials, experimental investigations with clear clinical relevance and tutorials.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信