Torasemide vs. Furosemide in Primary Care Patients with Chronic Heart Failure NYHA II to IV—Efficacy and Quality of Life

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The hypothesis was that torasemide, due to more predictable pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, induces greater improvements in functional and social limitation than furosemide and reduces the frequency of hospitalisations in primary care patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, randomized, unblinded study in primary care, 237 patients with CHF (NYHA II-IV), all on ACE inhibitors. Randomisation: torasemide (n=122) or furosemide (n=115), treated for 9 months. ENDPOINTS: Clinical efficacy, quality of life, safety, tolerability, hospitalisations. RESULTS: Clinical improvement was observed in both groups, but the trend to improve by at least one NYHA class was significant only in torasemide- (P=0.014), but not in furosemide-treated patients. There were no differences with regard to adverse events and hospitalisation due to CHF. Overall, tolerability (P=0.0001) and improvement in daily restrictions (P=0.0002) were significantly higher, number of mictions at 3, 6 and 12 h after diuretic intake (P<0.001 at all time points) and urgency to urinate (P<0.0001) significantly lower in torasemide- vs. furosemide-treated patients. CONCLUSION: CHF patients treated with torasemide gain a higher benefit in quality of life than furosemide treated patients, due to torasemide's dual effect on both clinical status and social function.