The Cost Avoidance Of Switching From Iv Chlorothiazide To Metolazone For Dual Nephron Blockade Using Clinical Use Criteria: A Single-center Experience

Lydia Ganaden,Courtney Shakowski,David Raymer,Robert L. Page

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.143

IF: 6.592

2024-01-01

Journal of Cardiac Failure

Abstract:Background Intravenous (IV) bolus or continuous use loop diuretics are considered first line for volume overload in patients with heart failure (HF). If maximal loop diuretic therapy is insufficient, addition of a thiazide-type diuretic is needed for dual nephron blockade (DNB). Unfortunately, chlorothiazide, the only available IV thiazide, is expensive compared to metolazone (chlorothiazide 500 mg vial: $35.00 vs metolazone 5mg: $0.60). While studies suggest no statistically significant differences in safety or efficacy between the two thiazides exists for DNB, we have observed inappropriate overuse of chlorothiazide within the ICU setting This evaluation aimed to characterize the use of IV chlorothiazide within our health system, create and model specific clinical use criteria for chlorothiazide, and estimate the potential cost avoidance. Methods In this retrospective, observational, cohort study, we evaluated between January 1, 2022 and July 1, 2022 inpatients at the University of Colorado Hospital who received at least one dose of IV chlorothiazide for volume overload for HF. Patients were excluded if they were <18 or >89 years of age, pregnant, or could not swallow (NPO) and did not have a feeding tube. The following IV chlorothiazide clinical use criteria was proposed and modeled: insufficient response to IV furosemide >160 mg/day or equivalent plus 5 mg metolazone or (2) insufficient response to IV furosemide >160 mg/day or equivalent and were strictly NPO. An insufficient response was defined as a lack of clinically relevant increase in urine output measured 2 hours post-metolazone administration with IV loop diuretic. Cost was calculated based on actual number of chlorothiazide vials used per patient. Descriptive statics were employed for all study objectives. Results A total of 100 patients met inclusion of which 27% were managed by the cardio-thoracic team and 53% by the cardiology team. The mean dose of IV loop diuretic therapy in the 24-hours prior to IV chlorothiazide administration was 186+/- 113.32 mg with 59 of patients meeting loop diuretic resistance criteria (e.g, furosemide dose > 160 mg/day or equivalent). Of these 59 patients, only 12 (20%) patients received metolazone prior to IV chlorothiazide administration. Based on our clinical use criteria, 88% of patients evaluated would no longer be indicated for IV chlorothiazide administration. The result is a potential cost avoidance of $10,945 over a 6-month period. Conclusion In a time of cost containment, implementation of IV chlorothiazide clinical use criteria could lead to a significant cost avoidance. These clinical use criteria are being proposed and implemented system-wide across all three hospitals within the University of Colorado Health.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems