ABSTRACT
AIM: Diuretics are a cornerstone in treatment of heart failure (HF). Torasemide is a loop diuretic with a potential advantage over other diuretics. We aim to meta-analyse and compare the effect of torasemide with furosemide in HF patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search using 12 databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing furosemide and torasemide in HF patients were included and meta-analysed. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016046112). RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs with 1598 patients were included. There was a significant difference between torasemide 20 mg and furosemide 40 mg in increasing the urine volume (standard difference of the mean (SDM) [95% confidence interval] = -0.78 [-1.52 to -0.053], P = .036). Torasemide 10 mg and 10 to 20 mg have a significant effect on potassium excretion in comparison with furosemide 25 to 40 mg (P = .018 and .023, respectively). In general, torasemide and furosemide have no significant difference in mortality, edema improvement, weight loss, heart rate, and reducing systolic/diastolic blood pressure. However, oral torasemide has a significant lower hospital stay P < .001 and superior effect in improving ejection fraction P = .029. CONCLUSION: Although not all results are statistically significant, torasemide has potential advantages on multiple aspects of HF management when compared with furosemide. More studies are needed to clarify these effects.
Subject(s)
Furosemide , Heart Failure , Heart Failure/drug therapy , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Torsemide , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to compare three different percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) approaches: culprit-only (COR) and complete (CR) revascularization - categorizing into immediate (ICR) or staged (SCR). METHODS: We searched 13 databases for randomized controlled trials. Articles were included if they compared at least two strategies. To have more studies in each analysis, an adjusted analysis was performed using person-years to incorporate follow-up durations and obtain pooled rate ratios (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included with a population of 2830 patients. COR significantly increased major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (adjusted RR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.27-2.19) and repeat revascularization (2.12, 1.67-2.69), which was driven by repeat PCI, without any difference in all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) compared to CR. When categorizing CR into SCR and ICR, the trend repeated with COR increased MACE (1.99, 1.53-2.6 for ICR), cardiovascular mortality (2.06, 1.07-3.96 for ICR), MI for ICR (1.72, 1.04-2.86), repeat revascularization and repeat PCI for both ICR and SCR. Non-cardiovascular mortality, stroke, nephropathy, re-hospitalization, stent thrombosis and bleeding were similar among all approaches. CONCLUSIONS: In MVD-STEMI patients, CR is better than COR in terms of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, repeat revascularization with no difference in safety outcomes. There was a trend towards to a reduction of cardiovascular mortality and MI in ICR compared to SCR when each matched with COR; even though there is no statistically significant difference between ICR and SCR when compared together.
