Use Of Metolazone And Tolvaptan As Adjuvant Diuretic Therapy In Patients With Acute Heart Failure Exacerbation: A Systematic Literature Review And Meta-analysis Of Randomized Controlled Trials

Matthew G. Kaye,Mohamad A. Kalot,Ronak Bahuva,Ronak Bharucha,Cody Elkhechen,Anna Jacquinot,Mohamad Kaki,Paras Mehmood,Kristie Nasr,Rohan Pandey,Danny Ram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.322

IF: 6.592

2024-01-01

Journal of Cardiac Failure

Abstract:Background Hospitalization rates for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) continue to rise. Current guidelines recommend adequate diuresis as a cornerstone of ADHF treatment, with loop diuretics often used as first-line therapy. Diuretic resistance is common among patients with heart failure and portends a poorer prognosis. In these patients, combination therapy with two or more diuretic agents may be required. Objectives We aim to compare patient outcomes associated with use of metolazone and tolvaptan when as adjuvant therapy in ADHF. Methods We searched Medline and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which studied the effects of metolazone or tolvaptan use in the management of ADHF. Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool and the RoB for Non-Randomized Studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tools were used to assess the quality of the included studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted and the certainty of the evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Independent reviewers conducted title, abstract, and full-text screening in duplicate to identify eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the relative effect of therapies using risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean effect difference (MD) and 95% CI. Results Thirty-four RCTs were included in analysis. Pooled effect estimate demonstrated a statistically significant all-cause lower mortality risk in patients receiving adjuvant tolvaptan compared to those receiving standard therapy alone (RR = 0.53, 95% CI [0.46, 0.60], p < 0.00001). Patients receiving adjuvant tolvaptan also experienced reduced incidence of renal dysfunction (RR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.33, 0.78], p = 0.002) and decrease in body weight at day 1 (MD = -0.75 kg, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.66], p < 0.00001) and day 7 (MD = -0.69 kg, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.52], p < 0.00001) without an increase in adverse events compared to standard therapy. Metolazone use was associated with worsening electrolyte abnormalities whereas use of tolvaptan improved serum sodium levels. Conclusions Both metolazone and tolvaptan effectively augment diuresis in patients with ADHF when added to standard heart failure therapy. Use of tolvaptan may have benefits over metolazone including reduced mortality, lower incidence of renal dysfunction, and fewer electrolyte abnormalities. More research, in the form of head-to-head clinical trials, is needed to better evaluate the comparative effectiveness of these two commonly employed adjuvant therapies in patients with ADHF.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems