Effects Of Metolazone Administration On Congestion, Diuretic Response And Renal Function In Patients With Advanced Heart Failure

Background: Advanced heart failure (HF) is a condition often requiring elevated doses of loop diuretics. Therefore, these patients often experience poor diuretic response. Both conditions have a detrimental impact on prognosis and hospitalization. Aims: This retrospective, multicenter study evaluates the effect of the addition of oral metolazone on diuretic response (DR), clinical congestion, NTproBNP values, and renal function over hospitalization phase. Follow-up analysis for a 6-month follow-up period was performed. Methods: We enrolled 132 patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in advanced NYHA class with reduced ejection fraction (EF < 40%) taking a mean furosemide amount of 250 +/- 120 mg/day. Sixty-five patients received traditional loop diuretic treatment plus metolazone (Group M). The mean dose ranged from 7.5 to 15 mg for one week. Sixty-seven patients continued the furosemide (Group F). Congestion score was evaluated according to the ESC recommendations. DR was assessed by the formula diuresis/40 mg of furosemide. Results: Patients in Group M and patients in Group F showed a similar prevalence of baseline clinical congestion (3.1 +/- 0.7 in Group F vs. 3 +/- 0.8 in Group M) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (51% in Group M vs. 57% in Group F; p = 0.38). Patients in Group M experienced a better congestion score at discharge compared to patients in Group F (C score: 1 +/- 1 in Group M vs. 3 +/- 1 in Group F p > 0.05). Clinical congestion resolution was also associated with weight reduction (-6 +/- 2 in Group M vs. -3 +/- 1 kg in Group F, p < 0.05). Better DR response was observed in Group M compared to F (940 +/- 149 mL/40 mgFUROSEMIDE/die vs. 541 +/- 314 mL/40 mgFUROSEMIDE/die; p < 0.01), whereas median Delta NTproBNP remained similar between the two groups (-4819 +/- 8718 in Group M vs. -3954 +/- 5560 pg/mL in Group F NS). These data were associated with better daily diuresis during hospitalization in Group M (2820 +/- 900 vs. 2050 +/- 1120 mL p < 0.05). No differences were found in terms of WRF development and electrolyte unbalance at discharge, although Group M had a significant saline solution administration during hospitalization. Follow-up analysis did not differ between the group but a reduced trend for recurrent hospitalization was observed in the M group (26% vs. 38%). Conclusions: Metolazone administration could be helpful in patients taking an elevated loop diuretics dose. Use of thiazide therapy is associated with better decongestion and DR. Current findings could suggest positive insights due to the reduced amount of loop diuretics in patients with advanced HF.