Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Causes and hemodynamic findings in chronic severe pulmonary regurgitation.

Severe pulmonary regurgitation (PR) most commonly occurs as a sequelae of treatment of pulmonic stenosis or Tetralogy of Fallot with fewer cases of primary pulmonic valvular regurgitation. The amount of PR is influenced by valvular integrity, right ventricular (RV) size, and RV diastolic pressures. In chronic severe PR, the RV remodels to accommodate the regurgitant flow and RV stroke volume increases to maintain effective forward blood flow. Hemodynamic changes include a widened pulmonary artery (PA) pulse pressure and low PA diastolic pressures. As the amount of regurgitation increases, RV end diastolic pressure becomes elevated and systemic cardiac output is reduced, especially with exercise. "Ventricularization" of the PA pressure tracing, in which the contour of the PA pressure is similar to the contour of the RV pressure, is a specific but not sensitive finding in severe PR. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The role of heart failure pharmacotherapy after left ventricular assist device support.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly common treatment for end-stage systolic heart failure. However, there are limited data on how to best treat patients pharmacologically after LVAD implantation, resulting in uncertainty about which heart failure medications provide the most benefit. Still, some evidence exists that certain medical therapies can prevent remodeling and improve right ventricular and, possibly, left ventricular function. This article reviews the current literature for medical heart failure therapy in LVAD patients, and possible future treatment strategies.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: an ongoing enigma.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex clinical syndrome based on traditional heart failure symptoms with documentation of increased left ventricular filling pressures and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. The exact mechanisms that induce HFpEF are not known. End-diastolic ventricular stiffness does not seem to be acting alone. Substantial mortality exists compared with healthy age-matched controls, as well as significant health care expenditures on hospitalizations and readmissions. This article reviews the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Current practice guidelines focus on remedying volume overload, aggressively controlling hypertension, and treatment of comorbid conditions that contribute to decompensation.