Background Intravenous (IV) furosemide and torsemide represent a cornerstone of guideline-directed medical therapy for acute heart failure (AHF). However, the evidence regarding the superiority of each agent remains controversial. Methods The prospective, open-label, comparative study included 51 adult patients hospitalized due to AHF. Torsemide was administered to 25 patients (49%), and furosemide to 26 patients (51%). The primary endpoint was the change in urinary spot sodium level at 24 h, used to assess diuretic efficacy. Secondary outcomes included lung ultrasound (LUS) B-lines, clinical status evaluation based on the Borg scale, Killip-Kimball classification, and daily urine output. Results After 24 h of treatment, urinary sodium levels increased by an estimated marginal mean (EMM) of 21.84 mmol/L in the furosemide group and 0.97 mmol/L in the torsemide group (p = 0.173). The number of B-lines over 24 h decreased, with an EMM of 28.31 in the furosemide group, and 30.12 in the torsemide group (p = 0.779). The severity of dyspnea, measured by the Borg scale, decreased over 24 h with an EMM of 3.58 points in the furosemide group, and 3.62 points in the torsemide group (p = 0.891). Pulmonary congestion, measured by the Killip-Kimball classification, minimized with an EMM of 0.42 points in the furosemide group, and 0.47 points in the torsemide group (p = 0.770). Daily urine output after 24 h of treatment reached an EMM of 3,559.67 mL in the furosemide group, and 2,734.89 mL in the torsemide group (p = 0.068). Conclusion Both furosemide and torsemide demonstrated comparable efficacy in the initial treatment of AHF, as assessed by laboratory, ultrasound, and clinical parameters.
Małek‐Elikowska et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: