Skip Navigation

European Journal of Heart Failure 2003 5(6):793-801; doi:10.1016/S1388-9842(03)00150-8
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Müller, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hess, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Müller, K.
Right arrow Articles by Hess, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2003 European Society of Cardiology

Torasemide vs. furosemide in primary care patients with chronic heart failure NYHA II to IV—efficacy and quality of life

Karin Müllera, Giancesare Gambab, Françoise Jaquetc and Bernhard Hessd,*

a Roche Pharmaceuticals Switzerland CH-4153 Reinach, Switzerland
b Biometrix S.A. CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland
c Five Office Ltd., Study Coordinating Agency CH-8620 Wetzikon, Switzerland
d Department of Medicine Spital Zimmerberg, CH-8820 Waedenswil, Switzerland

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +41-1-728-15-02; fax: +41-1-728-15-05 E-mail address: b.hess{at}spital-zimmerberg.ch


  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.

Key Words: Chronic heart failure • Diuretics • Torasemide • Furosemide • Efficacy • Quality of life

Received February 12, 2003; Revised April 23, 2003; Accepted July 17, 2003


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
K. A Wargo and W. M Banta
A Comprehensive Review of the Loop Diuretics: Should Furosemide Be First Line?
Ann. Pharmacother., November 1, 2009; 43(11): 1836 - 1847.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.