Background Loop diuretics are an essential component of therapy for patients with acute decompensated heart failure, but there are few prospective data to guide their use. Methods In a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned 308 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive furosemide administered intravenously by means of either a bolus every 12 hours or continuous infusion and at either a low dose (equivalent to the patient's previous oral dose) or a high dose (2.5 times the previous oral dose). The protocol allowed specified dose adjustments after 48 hours. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours. Results In the comparison of bolus with continuous infusion, there was no significant difference in patients' global assessment of symptoms (mean AUC, 4236±1440 and 4373±1404, respectively; P = 0.47) or in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.05±0.3 mg per deciliter [4.4±26.5 μmol per liter] and 0.07±0.3 mg per deciliter [6.2±26.5μmol per liter], respectively; P = 0.45). In the comparison of the high-dose strategy with the low-dose strategy, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater improvement in patients' global assessment of symptoms in the high-dose group (mean AUC, 4430±1401 vs. 4171±1436; P = 0.06). There was no significant difference between these groups in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.08±0.3 mg per deciliter [7.1±26.5 μmol per liter] with the high-dose strategy and 0.04±0.3 mg per deciliter [3.5±26.5 μmol per liter] with the low-dose strategy, P = 0.21). The high-dose strategy was associated with greater diuresis and more favorable outcomes in some secondary measures but also with transient worsening of renal function. Conclusions Among patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00577135.)

No abstract

In decompensated HF, ultrafiltration safely produces greater weight and fluid loss than intravenous diuretics, reduces 90-day resource utilization for HF, and is an effective alternative therapy. (The UNLOAD trial; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00124137?order=1; NCT00124137).

BACKGROUND Ultrafiltration is an alternative strategy to diuretic therapy for the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by persistent congestion and worsened renal function. METHODS We randomly assigned a total of 188 patients with acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion to a strategy of stepped pharmacologic therapy (94 patients) or ultrafiltration (94 patients). The primary end point was the bivariate change from baseline in the serum creatinine level and body weight, as assessed 96 hours after random assignment. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS Ultrafiltration was inferior to pharmacologic therapy with respect to the bivariate end point of the change in the serum creatinine level and body weight 96 hours after enrollment (P=0.003), owing primarily to an increase in the creatinine level in the ultrafiltration group. At 96 hours, the mean change in the creatinine level was −0.04±0.53 mg per deciliter (−3.5±46.9 μmol per liter) in the pharmacologic-therapy group, as compared with +0.23±0.70 mg per deciliter (20.3±61.9 μmol per liter) in the ultrafiltration group (P=0.003). There was no significant difference in weight loss 96 hours after enrollment between patients in the pharmacologic-therapy group and those in the ultrafiltration group (a loss of 5.5±5.1 kg [12.1±11.3 lb] and 5.7±3.9 kg [12.6±8.5 lb], respectively; P=0.58). A higher percentage of patients in the ultrafiltration group than in the pharmacologic-therapy group had a serious adverse event (72% vs. 57%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS In a randomized trial involving patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion, the use of a stepped pharmacologic-therapy algorithm was superior to a strategy of ultrafiltration for the preservation of renal function at 96 hours, with a similar amount of weight loss with the two approaches. Ultrafiltration was associated with a higher rate of adverse events.

Small studies suggest that low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide may enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction; however, neither strategy has been rigorously tested.OBJECTIVE To test the 2 independent hypotheses that, compared with placebo, addition of low-dose dopamine (2 μg/kg/min) or low-dose nesiritide (0.005 μg/kg/min without bolus) to diuretic therapy will enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation [ROSE]) of 360 hospitalized patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction (estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15-60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), randomized within 24 hours of admission. Enrollment occurred from September 2010 to March 2013 across 26 sites in North America. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized in an open, 1:1 allocation ratio to the dopamine or nesiritide strategy. Within each strategy, participants were randomized in a double-blind, 2:1 ratio to active treatment or placebo. The dopamine (n = 122) and nesiritide (n = 119) groups were independently compared with the pooled placebo group (n = 119). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Coprimary end points included 72-hour cumulative urine volume (decongestion end point) and the change in serum cystatin C from enrollment to 72 hours (renal function end point).RESULTS Compared with placebo, low-dose dopamine had no significant effect on 72-hour cumulative urine volume (dopamine, 8524 mL; 95% CI, 7917-9131 vs placebo, 8296 mL; 95% CI, 7762-8830 ; difference, 229 mL; 95% CI, −714 to 1171 mL; P = .59) or on the change in cystatin C level (dopamine, 0.12 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.18 vs placebo, 0.11 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16; difference, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.10; P = .72). Similarly, low-dose nesiritide had no significant effect on 72-hour cumulative urine volume (nesiritide, 8574 mL; 95% CI, 8014-9134 vs placebo, 8296mL; 95% CI, 7762-8830; difference, 279 mL; 95% CI, −618 to 1176 mL; P = .49) or on the change in cystatin C level (nesiritide, 0.07 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13 vs placebo, 0.11 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16; difference, −0.04; 95% CI, −0.13 to 0.05; P = .36). Compared with placebo, there was no effect of low-dose dopamine or nesiritide on secondary end points reflective of decongestion, renal function, or clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCEIn participants with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction, neither low-dose dopamine nor low-dose nesiritide enhanced decongestion or improved renal function when added to diuretic therapy.