Key result
Torsemide was associated with a lower risk of the composite effectiveness outcome compared to furosemide (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-0.99), but a higher risk of acute kidney injury.
Why the study?
Evidence on the real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of loop diuretics for heart failure is mixed, particularly among older adults at higher risk of adverse outcomes.
Does torsemide reduce the composite of heart failure hospitalization or death compared to furosemide in older adults with heart failure?
Cohort (n=328,640)
Does torsemide reduce the composite of heart failure hospitalization or death compared to furosemide in older adults with heart failure?
Hazard Ratio: 0.97 (95% CI 0.95–0.99)
In older adults with heart failure, torsemide initiation is associated with a slightly lower risk of mortality or heart failure hospitalization compared to furosemide, but carries a higher risk of acute kidney injury.
Torsemide should not yet replace furosemide in older HF patients; leaves open net benefit pending RCTs amid AKI signal.
PURPOSE: Evidence on the real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of commonly used loop diuretics for heart failure is mixed, particularly among older adults who are at a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Thus, we aimed to compare the outcomes and safety profiles of torsemide and furosemide. METHODS: We conducted a new user, active comparator retrospective cohort study comparing torsemide to furosemide in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with heart failure in claims data (2008-2020). Effectiveness outcomes were a composite of heart failure hospitalization or death and urgent outpatient visits requiring intravenous diuretics; safety outcomes included acute kidney injury, hypovolemia, and hypokalemia. We used 1:4 propensity score (PS) matching to adjust for confounding. We calculated PS-matched hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Across 328 640 matched beneficiaries, compared with furosemide, torsemide was associated with a similar, though statistically significantly lower, risk of the composite effectiveness outcome (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.97, 95% CI:0.95,0.99; incidence rate difference (IRD) = -3.79, 95% CI:-9.38,1.81 events per 1000 person-years) and lower risk for urgent visits with intravenous loop diuretics (HR = 0.88, 95% CI:0.84,0.92; IRD = -7.03, 95% CI:-9.79,-4.26 events per 1000 person-years). Torsemide was also associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (HR = 1.12, 95% CI:1.10,1.15; IRD = 36.89, 95% CI:31.51,42.64 events per 1000 person-years) with no observed difference in hypokalemia (HR = 1.02, 95% CI:0.91,1.14; IRD = 0.46, 95% CI:-0.51,1.42 events per 1000 person-years) and hypovolemia (HR = 1.03, 95% CI:0.98,1.09; IRD = 2.36, 95% CI:0.15,4.56 events per 1000 person-years). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with furosemide, initiation of torsemide was associated with a slightly lower risk of a composite of all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization and urgent visits with intravenous diuretics, but a slightly higher risk of acute kidney injury. In older adults, clinicians must balance torsemide's potential benefits with the acute kidney injury risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alkhalaf et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=328,640). Torsemide vs. Furosemide was evaluated on Composite of heart failure hospitalization or death (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99). Torsemide was associated with a lower risk of the composite effectiveness outcome compared to furosemide (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-0.99), but a higher risk of acute kidney injury.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: