van Poelgeest Eveline, Paoletti Luca, Özkök Serdar, Pinar Ezgi, Bahat Gülistan, Vuong Vincent, Topinková Eva, Daams Joost, McCarthy Lisa, Thompson Wade, van der Velde Nathalie
Department of Internal Medicine/Geriatrics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Aging and Later Life, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2025 Jan;91(1):38-54. doi: 10.1111/bcp.16189. Epub 2024 Aug 8.
In this systematic review, we report on the effects of diuretic deprescribing compared to continued diuretic use. We included clinical studies reporting on outcomes such as mortality, heart failure recurrence, tolerability and feasibility. We assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. We included 25 publications from 22 primary studies (15 randomized controlled trials; 7 nonrandomized studies). The mean number of participants in the deprescribing groups was 35, and median/mean age 64 years. In patients with heart failure, there was no clear evidence that diuretic deprescribing was associated with increased mortality compared to diuretic continuation (low certainty evidence). The risk of cardiovascular composite outcomes associated with diuretic deprescribing was inconsistent (studies showing lower risk for diuretic deprescribing, or comparable risk with diuretic continuation; very low certainty evidence). The effect on heart failure recurrence after diuretic deprescribing in patients with diuretics for heart failure, and of hypertension in patients with diuretics for hypertension was inconsistent across the included studies (low certainty evidence). In patients with diuretics for hypertension, diuretic deprescribing was well tolerated (moderate certainty evidence), while in patients with diuretics for heart failure, deprescribing diuretics can result in complaints of peripheral oedema (very low certainty evidence). The overall risk of bias was generally high. In summary, this systematic review suggests that diuretic discontinuation could be a safe and feasible treatment option for carefully selected patients. However, there isa lack of high-quality evidence on its feasibility, safety and tolerability of diuretic deprescribing, warranting further research.
在本系统评价中,我们报告了与持续使用利尿剂相比,停用利尿剂的效果。我们纳入了报告死亡率、心力衰竭复发、耐受性和可行性等结局的临床研究。我们使用GRADE框架评估偏倚风险和证据的确定性。我们纳入了来自22项主要研究的25篇出版物(15项随机对照试验;7项非随机研究)。停用利尿剂组的平均参与者人数为35人,年龄中位数/平均数为64岁。在心力衰竭患者中,没有明确证据表明与继续使用利尿剂相比,停用利尿剂会增加死亡率(低确定性证据)。与停用利尿剂相关的心血管复合结局风险不一致(研究显示停用利尿剂风险较低,或与继续使用利尿剂风险相当;极低确定性证据)。在纳入的研究中,对于因心力衰竭使用利尿剂的患者,停用利尿剂后对心力衰竭复发的影响,以及对于因高血压使用利尿剂的患者,停用利尿剂后对高血压的影响不一致(低确定性证据)。在因高血压使用利尿剂的患者中,停用利尿剂耐受性良好(中等确定性证据),而在因心力衰竭使用利尿剂的患者中,停用利尿剂可能导致外周水肿的主诉(极低确定性证据)。总体偏倚风险普遍较高。总之,本系统评价表明,对于精心挑选的患者,停用利尿剂可能是一种安全可行的治疗选择。然而,关于停用利尿剂的可行性、安全性和耐受性,缺乏高质量证据,需要进一步研究。