ReviewJRSM cardiovascular disease
Decongestion in chronic heart failure.
Review in JRSM cardiovascular disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congestion drives symptoms and adverse outcomes in heart failure (HF), and loop diuretics remain the cornerstone of decongestion. Yet randomized trials of diuretic strategies and other acute decongestive approaches have not shown mortality benefit, while mechanistic studies demonstrate rapid neurohormonal activation after acute loop diuretic administration. In chronic HF, observational data consistently associate higher loop diuretic requirements-particularly above ∼40 mg/day furosemide equivalent or with dose escalation-with worse prognosis across HF phenotypes, though confounding by disease severity is likely. Decongestion needs vary across the HF trajectory: early guideline-directed therapy provides intrinsic decongestive effects, whereas advanced HF is marked by diuretic resistance and renal vulnerability. Preload-dependent states (notably cardiac amyloidosis and selected HFpEF phenotypes) require especially careful titration to avoid hypovolemia and low output, and robust protocol-level trial evidence is lacking. Contemporary randomized data do not demonstrate superiority of torsemide over furosemide. Small trials and systematic reviews suggest that in carefully selected, stable, non-congested patients, diuretic withdrawal or reduction can be feasible, with ∼25-35% requiring re-initiation within 1-3 months and consistent lowering of renin activity; however, clinical outcome benefit remains unproven. Overall, evidence supports maintaining euvolemia with the lowest effective diuretic dose and considering monitored deprescribing in appropriate low-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.