Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (C.J.K., J.C.F.).
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (S.J.G., R.J.M., U.I., D.W., E.L.E.).
Circ Heart Fail. 2024 Mar;17(3):e011246. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.123.011246. Epub 2024 Mar 4.
The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups.
We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score.
Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; =0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup.
Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF.
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.
TRANSFORM-HF 试验(托塞米与呋塞米治疗心力衰竭的比较)发现,心力衰竭(HF)住院后接受托塞米治疗与呋塞米治疗的患者在全因死亡率或住院率方面无显著差异。然而,某些治疗方法的结果和反应因左心室射血分数(LVEF)而异。因此,我们试图通过基线 LVEF 来探讨托塞米与呋塞米的疗效,并评估 LVEF 各亚组的结局。
我们根据 LVEF 将 TRANSFORM-HF 中的基线患者特征和随机治疗效果进行分层:LVEF 降低,≤40% vs LVEF 轻度降低,41%~49% vs LVEF 保留,≥50%。我们还评估了 LVEF 与临床结局之间的关系。研究终点为 30 天和 12 个月的全因死亡率或住院率、12 个月的总住院率以及堪萨斯城心肌病问卷临床总结评分的基线变化。
共有 2635 例患者(中位年龄 64 岁,36%为女性,34%为黑人)有 LVEF 数据。与 LVEF 降低的 HF 相比,LVEF 轻度降低和 LVEF 保留的 HF 患者的合并症患病率更高。在调整协变量后,LVEF 各亚组之间的临床结局风险无显著差异(LVEF 轻度降低与 LVEF 降低相比,12 个月全因死亡率的调整后危险比为 0.91 [95%CI,0.59-1.39];LVEF 保留与 LVEF 降低相比,为 0.91 [95%CI,0.70-1.17];=0.73)。此外,无论 LVEF 亚组如何,托塞米与呋塞米在死亡率和住院结局方面均无显著差异,且在任何 LVEF 亚组中,堪萨斯城心肌病问卷临床总结评分的变化也无显著差异。
尽管 TRANSFORM-HF 中各 LVEF 队列的基线人口统计学和临床特征存在差异,但在 LVEF 谱内,托塞米与呋塞米在临床终点方面无显著差异。无论基线 LVEF 如何,全因死亡率和随后的住院风险都相当大。