Skip main navigation

Pathophysiology of Diuretic Resistance and Its Implications for the Management of Chronic Heart Failure

Originally publishedhttps://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15205Hypertension. 2020;76:1045–1054

Abstract

Diuretic resistance implies a failure to increase fluid and sodium (Na+) output sufficiently to relieve volume overload, edema, or congestion, despite escalating doses of a loop diuretic to a ceiling level (80 mg of furosemide once or twice daily or greater in those with reduced glomerular filtration rate or heart failure). It is a major cause of recurrent hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure and predicts death but is difficult to diagnose unequivocally. Pharmacokinetic mechanisms include the low and variable bioavailability of furosemide and the short duration of all loop diuretics that provides time for the kidneys to restore diuretic-induced Na+ losses between doses. Pathophysiological mechanisms of diuretic resistance include an inappropriately high daily salt intake that exceeds the acute diuretic-induced salt loss, hyponatremia or hypokalemic, hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis, and reflex activation of the renal nerves. Nephron mechanisms include tubular tolerance that can develop even during the time that the renal tubules are exposed to a single dose of diuretic, or enhanced reabsorption in the proximal tubule that limits delivery to the loop, or an adaptive increase in reabsorption in the downstream distal tubule and collecting ducts that offsets ongoing blockade of Na+ reabsorption in the loop of Henle. These provide rationales for novel strategies including the concurrent use of diuretics that block these nephron segments and even sequential nephron blockade with multiple diuretics and aquaretics combined in severely diuretic-resistant patients with heart failure.

We review the pathophysiology of diuretic resistance and its implications for improving the management of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Diuretic resistance is a failure to increase fluid and sodium (Na+) output sufficiently to relieve volume overload, edema or congestion despite a full dose of a loop diuretic. More quantitative definitions include a failure of oral furosemide (160 mg twice daily or equivalent) to increase Na+ excretion by at least 90 mmol over 3 days.1 Alternatively, a spot urine sample obtained 1 to 2 hours after a loop diuretic can be used to predicts Na+ output. A Na+ output <50 mmol is generally insufficient to induce a negative Na+ balance with loop diuretics and therefore predicts diuretic resistance. This was validated prospectively in 50 patients2:

Na+ output (mmol)=estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (body surface area/1.73) (SCr/UCr)×60 min×3.25h×(UNa/1000 mL) where Cr is urine or serum creatinine and UNa is urine sodium concentration.2

A poor diuretic response predicts subsequent death, readmission, or renal complications from CHF.3 Recognition of diuretic resistance is hampered by imprecise metrics. Intravenous diuretics for patients hospitalized with decompensated HF can reduce body weight by 11 kg yet signs of hypervolemia and congestion persist in >50% and blood volume, that predicts mortality,4 remains ≈30% expanded.5 Thus, interstitial fluid, including peripheral and pulmonary edema, is depleted selectively but blood volume is well defended. Indeed, >85% of fluid removed by diuretics is from extravascular sites that include peripheral and pulmonary edema. Steady-state measurements of daily Na+ excretion can indicate daily Na+ intake but cannot diagnose diuretic resistance (Figure 1). Presently, a practical and quantitative definition of diuretic resistance remains elusive.

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Diuretic braking phenomenon and diuretic resistance. Schematic representation of a diuretic responsive (gray lines and gray boxes) or resistant subject (dark lines and solid boxes), showing body weight (A) and daily sodium excretion (B) during loop diuretic administration.

Loop Diuretics and Dosage

Furosemide diuresis normally lasts about 4 hours. Bumetanide is somewhat shorter and torsemide somewhat longer. An approximate dose conversion ratio is 1:20:40:50 for bumetanide: torsemide: furosemide: ethacrynic acid. The normal ceiling daily dose of furosemide above which little further natriuresis occurs is 80 mg once or twice daily, increasing to 160 and 240 mg in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3 and 4 or nephrotic syndrome or 80 to 160 mg in patients with cirrhosis or HF with preserved GFR. Very high doses of circa 500 mg of furosemide may be required in patients with end-stage renal disease.6 The higher furosemide doses required for patients with CKD are a consequence of many factors including a decreased diuretic delivery to the kidney because of decreased renal blood flow (RBF), an increased volume of distribution of the protein-bound diuretic because of hypoalbuminemia, a decreased proximal tubule (PT) secretion of the diuretic by the organic anion transporters because of competition by urate and other organic anions that are retained in the plasma in patients with CKD, and a decreased filtered load of Na+ because of a decreased GFR.7 However, the response to the diuretic delivered to the loop of Henle (LH) is well maintained in CKD. In practice, the dose of loop diuretics should generally be increased in proportion to the reduction in eGFR. Patients with CHF may have an impaired absorption of loop diuretics and an impaired tubular response mandating higher doses often given twice daily.8

Special problems with furosemide include a low and variable bioavailability of 10 −80% that is impaired further in the elderly and those with HF or CKD.9 In theory, this should be addressed by intravenous dosing or by substituting torsemide or bumetanide that have higher and more consistent bioavailabilities.10 However, intravenous infusions are not strikingly superior to oral or bolus intravenous dosing (see later below) and variations in the gene expressions for the organic anion transporters and other genes adds to torsemide variability.11,12

Individual Diuretic Responsiveness

The natriuretic response depends on salt intake,13 diuretic dose, renal function, and right atrial pressure.14 Whereas a low eGFR in patients with HF predicts a poor outcome, a worsening eGFR during hospitalization for acute HF in the Diuretic Optimization Strategies in Acute Heart Failure (DOSE) study paradoxically predicted a better outcome.15 This may reflect a successful hemodynamic response to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade that itself reduces the GFR but is beneficial for long term renal function.2

General Mechanisms of Diuretic Resistance and Tubular Responsiveness

Losses of body weight and Na+ are normally attenuated progressively during diuretic therapy (braking phenomenon; Figure 1). The initial 6-hourly natriuresis is enhanced during high salt intake (Figure 2A), yet salt restriction is required to reduce Na+ balance (Figure 2B) or body weight (Figure 2C)13 because, during a high Na+ intake, the acute Na+ loss is restored by the kidneys after the diuresis by reduced Na+ excretion below intake, resulting in an unchanged Na+ balance (Figure 2D). However, during a low Na+ intake, even a very low level of postdiuretic Na+ excretion cannot restore Na+ balance because the acute natriuresis exceeds the dietary Na+ intake (Figure 2E). Thus, for diuretic-resistant patients, the daily Na+ intake should be less than the acute Na+ loss with the diuretic to ensure a negative Na+ balance. This value is 120 to 150 mmol in normal subjects but is reduced in those with CHF to about 50 to 100 mmol.16 However, whereas salt restriction increases diuretic-induced negative salt balance,13 it also increases renin, Ang II (angiotensin II), aldosterone, and renal K+ losses17,18 and may increase the risk of death in patients with HF.19 Restriction of daily Na+ intake to 80 to 120 mmol (2–3 g) is a reasonable target for patients with modest CHF and diuretic resistance.6,20

Figure 2.

Figure 2. The effects of salt intake on the responses of volunteers to furosemide. Mean (±SEM) changes over 6 h (A) or over 24 h (B–E) after 40 mg of furosemide over 3 d during a daily sodium intake of 280 mmol (open boxes) or 20 mmol (closed boxes) depicting changes in fractional excretion of sodium for 6 h after the first dose of furosemide (A), daily sodium balance (B), changes in daily body weight over three days (C) and the patterns of 6-hourly sodium excretion (D and E).

After PT secretion, diuretics are confined to the tubular lumen. Thus, their rate of excretion approximates to their rate of delivery to their active site on the tubular lumen of the LH. A plot of increased Na+ excretion against diuretic excretion thereby provides an apparent dose-response relationship that approximates to tubular diuretic responsiveness.21 However, this relationship has marked hysteresis. Thus, the early points that fall on the ascent of the curve lead to much greater increases in Na+ excretion than the later points that fall on the descent of the curve. This finding implies the development of within-dose diuretic tolerance22 (Figure 3A). The initial few points on the steep part of the apparent dose-response curve represent highly efficient natriuresis but thereafter several points are effectively supramaximal, whereas later points fall on the truly inefficient descending curve (Figure 3B). Thus, a more prolonged delivery by an extended-release diuretic formulation can enhance diuretic efficiency.22

Figure 3.

Figure 3. Apparent dose-response, diuretic plasma or urine levels, and natriuretic pattern after a loop diuretic. The apparent dose-response relationship at time points after a single dose (A), the profile of diuretics with the most efficient levels corresponding to the middle 50% of the rising phase (B) and the natriuretic pattern of brief sodium loss (negative balance) followed by Na+ retention (positive balance; C).

Postdiuretic Sodium Retention

Although postdiuretic Na+ retention follows a period of volume loss and activation of the RAAS and sympathetic nervous system,17,18,23 it is not normally modified by blockade of these systems.23,24 Indeed, 94% of an intravenous test load of 100 mmol NaCl given to volunteers was excreted over 2 days but, when given after bumetanide accompanied by an infusion of Na+, Cl, and fluid sufficient to prevent any volume depletion, only 9% was excreted.25 Thus, postdiuretic renal Na+ retention entails a memory effect of the pharmacological action of the diuretic on the renal tubules, rather than a response to volume loss.

Renal Hemodynamics

A reduction in the RBF limits the delivery of diuretic to the kidneys, whereas a reduction in the GFR limits the tubular Na+ delivery. Thus, reductions in RBF or GFR can contribute to diuretic resistance.26

Loop diuretics inhibit reabsorption by the tubular macula densa segment at the end of the LH that normally initiates afferent arteriolar vasoconstriction by the tubuloglomerular feedback response. Thus, tubuloglomerular feedback blockade by loop diuretics should increase the RBF and GFR.27 Indeed, furosemide increases the GFR in dogs.28 However, it normally reduces the GFR and the RBF in rats,29 mice,30 and humans.31 The GFR falls by ≈23% after furosemide13,18,23 or torsemide22 in normal subjects or those with HF.26,32 The fall in GFR in rats is independent of volume depletion or activation of the RAAS33 but entails reflex renal vasoconstriction.33,34 Inhibition of tubular fluid reabsorption increases the tubular fluid volume35 and this increases the intrarenal pressures since the kidney is encapsulated.36,37 This increase in renal turgor will directly restrict the RBF38 but also will raise the renal interstitial pressure that activates the interstitial baroreceptors. In parallel, the diuretic will increase the urinary NaCl concentration that will activate the renal pelvic chemoreceptors. The ensuing increase in renal afferent nerve discharge should initiate a reno-renal reflex to increase renal efferent nerve activity and reduce the GFR and RBF39 (Figure 4). Indeed, the fall in GFR with furosemide in rats is mitigated by renal nerve deafferentation.33,34 Renal afferent nerve activity is increased in rats with HF and enhances tubular Na+ reabsorption, renin release, and renal vasoconstriction.40 Although radiofrequency renal nerve ablation for patients with HF reduces parameters of volume overload and symptoms modestly,41–43 any effects on diuretic resistance have yet to be studied.

Figure 4.

Figure 4. Hypothesis for activation of renal reflex vasoconstriction by loop diuretics. Diuretics reduce the reabsorption of sodium chloride in the loop of Henle (LH RNaCl), distend the distal tubules, and increase the renal interstitial pressure (Pi) that activates renal afferent baroreceptor nerves but also increase the pelvic urine sodium chloride concentration that activates renal afferent chemoreceptor nerves. The increased afferent nerve discharge activates a central nervous system (CNS) reno-renal reflex that increases the renal efferent nerve activity and the afferent arteriolar tone that reduces the renal blood flow (RBF) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR).

An aggressive diuresis in patients with diuretic-resistant CHF can increase the serum creatinine concentration. This is often ascribed to the concurrent use of RAAS inhibitors and taken as a sign of renal injury requiring a reduction in diuretic dosage or a change in therapy. However, whereas infusion of furosemide into euvolemic rats reduces their GFR and increases their renal vascular resistance, the concurrent administration of losartan does not modify the fall in GFR and reduces the renal vasoconstriction and filtration fraction.33 Thus, a fall in GFR in this setting is not a manifestation of renal ischemia or damage. Moreover, an ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitor increases furosemide natriuresis modestly in normal subjects thereby reducing the work required for Na+ reabsorption.44 A study of patients with acute HF, most of whom were taking an RAAS inhibitor, reported that aggressive diuresis with an average daily intravenous dose of 150 mg of furosemide reduced the eGFR only modestly. Moreover worsening renal function was not associated with any increase in the excretion of markers of renal tubular injury. Indeed, an increase in the excretion of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase, and kidney injury molecule 1 were associated paradoxically with improved 180-day patient survival.45 These data indicate that the effects of a RAAS inhibitor on the renal hemodynamic response to a loop diuretic may entail some further reduction in GFR but likely a maintained or improved RBF and sometimes an increase in Na+ excretion. The outcome of an improved RBF would be an improved renal O2 delivery, whereas the outcome of a reduced GFR and increased Na+ excretion would be a reduced renal O2 usage because of a reduced workload by the tubules. This favorable O2 balance should not induce renal ischemia or enhance renal tubular injury. Thus, the modest reduction in eGFR during intravenous loop diuretics during therapy with a RAAS inhibitor likely represents a favorable renal hemodynamic response rather than renal tubular injury and, therefore, should not normally be labeled acute kidney injury. It follows that a modest initial rise in serum creatinine concentration of <20% to 30% should not normally trigger withdrawal of the RAAS inhibitor therapy, but does require careful monitoring.

Hyponatremia and Hypokalemic, Hypochloremic, Metabolic Alkalosis

Loop diuretics and HF both provoke nonosmolar release of arginine vasopressin (AVP).46 The increase in AVP in HF may enhance both V1aR (vasopressin type 1a receptor)-mediated vasoconstriction and V2R-mediated free water retention. Together, these may contribute to cardiac strain, worsening congestion, and hyponatremia.47 The increase in plasma levels of AVP predicts bad outcomes in CHF,48 whereas the increase in AVP with loop diuretics predicts poor diuresis, hyponatremia, and bad outcomes.49 Tolvaptan blocks V2Rs and induces free water diuresis that corrects hyponatremia but can further increase AVP whose activation of VIaRs further enhances peripheral resistance and renal vasoconstriction.50 Conivaptan blocks V2Rs and V1aRs and may, therefore, have a further benefit, but its interaction with diuretics requires study.51

Mild metabolic alkalosis reduces the natriuretic response to bumetanide by ≈20%, likely because of increased presentation of HCO3, without Cl, to the NKCC2 (sodium, potassium, 2 chloride cotransporter) in the LH that has an absolute requirement for Cl for reabsorption with Na+ and K+.52 Diuretic responses in hypochloremic patients are improved after correction of hypochloremia with lysine chloride.53 Potassium depletion in rats halves the natriuretic response to furosemide.54 Thus, hypokalemic, hypochloremic metabolic alkalosis should be corrected by concurrent use of a collecting duct (CD) diuretic (eg, amiloride or triamterene), a mineralocorticosteroid receptor antagonists (eg, spironolactone or eplerenone), or oral KCl.

Hypoalbuminemia, Albuminuria, and Albumin Infusion

Because loop diuretics are bound to albumen, hypoproteinemia increases their volume of distribution and reduces their renal delivery.55 Mixing intravenous furosemide in a syringe with HSA (human serum albumin) improved urine output modestly in one study of patients with the nephrotic syndrome.55 However, furosemide should dissociate from circulating albumin in the circulation almost instantly, and these studies were not confirmed.56 Proteinuria per se might impair the diuretic response by binding of the secreted diuretics to filtered albumin in tubular fluid. However, the coadministration of furosemide with sulfisoxazole that displaces bound furosemide did not modify the responses of proteinuric subjects to a loop diuretic.57

Finally, infusions of salt poor HSA might increase the RBF and the delivery of the diuretic to the kidneys. However, an HSA infusion that increased the plasma volume by 23% actually reduced the Na+ excretion and the GFR.58 Moreover, although patients with the nephrotic syndrome infused with salt poor HSA had a modest increase in furosemide natriuresis, this was balanced by increased Na+ intake from the salt poor albumin, resulting in unchanged Na+ balance.59 Infusion of albumin can cause hypertension, respiratory distress, HF,60 and nephropathy.61 Thus, there is no clear place for albumin infusions to enhance diuretic responsiveness but rather these studies highlight many associated problems.

Diuretic Combinations

Diuretic therapy can upregulate Na+ transport in the PT that limits Na+ delivery to the LH or upregulates Na+ transport in downstream nephron segments that limit natriuresis (Figure 5). These findings provide rationales for combining diuretics with actions on different nephron segments.

Figure 5.

Figure 5. Strategies for the use of additional diuretics to counteract loop diuretic resistance in patients with heart failure. Schematic representation of nephron sites contributing to loop diuretic resistance and the major classes of diuretic drugs to correct these. Also shown is a summary from studies of patients with diuretic-resistant heart failure that apportioned the contribution to diuretic resistance between proximal effects that limited diuretic and sodium delivery to the loop of Henle (LH) and distal effects of increased reabsorption of sodium chloride (RNaCl) in the distal tubule (DT) and collecting duct (CD). CA indicates carbonic anhydrase; CAIs, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors; CD, collecting duct; ENaC, epithelial sodium channel; LH, loop of Henle; MR, mineralocorticosteroid receptor; MRA’s, mineralocorticosteroid receptor antagonists; NCC, sodium, chloride cotransporter; NKCC2, sodium, potassium, 2 chloride transporter; PT, proximal tubule; RNaCl, reabsorption of sodium chloride; SGLT2is, sodium-glucose linked transport 2 inhibitors; torsemide ER, torsemide extended-release; and V2R vasopressin type 2 receptor. Reprinted from Rao et al75 with permission. Copyright ©2017.

Loop Diuretic Plus PT Diuretic

Blockade of PT reabsorption by acetazolamide (Diamox) does not normally augment furosemide natriuresis62,63 likely because it increases the LH delivery of Na+ with HCO3, whereas reabsorption by the NKCC2 transporter in the LH is limited by Cl- delivery.52 Although acetazolamide increased diuretic responsiveness in one experimental study, the authors related this to downregulation of Cl/HCO3 exchange by pendrin in the CD.64

SGLT2is (sodium-glucose linked transporter type 2 inhibitors) reduce PT reabsorption and synergize with loop diuretics to enhance natriuresis65 as discussed.66 Normal volunteers studied at a daily Na+ intake of 110 mmol were randomized to dapagliflozin or bumetanide for one week and crossed over. Natriuresis with bumetanide was increased significantly by 36% when tested after 1 week of dapagliflozin and natriuresis with dapagliflozin was increased significantly by 190% when tested after one week of bumetanide. The augmented loop diuretic response after adaptation to dapagliflozin likely occurred because the SGLT2i reduced PT reabsorption of Na+66 and thereby upregulated the downstream reabsorption of Na+ in the LH that is the target for loop diuretics.67 The augmented SGLT2i response after adaptation to bumetanide likely occurred because the loop diuretic released renin that generated Ang II that upregulated the expression of SGLT2 in the PT68 that is the target for SGLT2i’s. In another study, patients with CHF and type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized for 2 weeks to empagliflozin versus placebo. Empagliflozin increased the Na+ excretion with loop diuretics without enhancing the K+ excretion69 and reduced the plasma volume over 2 weeks. This occurred without activation of the RAAS or sympathetic nervous system and without a decline in the GFR or the appearance of tubular biomarkers of nephron damage.69 Thus, SGLT2is may become important adjuncts to loop diuretic therapy for patients with CHF even in the absence of diabetes mellitus. Indeed, the recent Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial in patients with HF but without diabetes mellitus reported a significant reduction in CVD events and mortality in those randomized to dapagliflozin.70 These results provide a rationale for the use of an SGLT2i to manage diuretic resistance in a wider range of patients with CHF, but this requires further evaluation.

Loop Diuretic Plus Early Distal Tubule Diuretic

Rats given furosemide develop massive hypertrophy of the distal tubule (DT),71 CD,72 and intercalated cells,73 and a 3-fold increase in the Na+ reabsorption by the DT.74 Therefore, it is rational for patients resistant to loop diuretics to add a thiazide that blocks DT reabsorption.75–77 Frequently, metolazone is selected since it is available as an intravenous or oral preparation. Metolazone has a thiazide-like action and an additional effect to reduce PT reabsorption. An observational study reported that the use of metolazone with loop diuretics for patients with acute HF was associated with frequent electrolyte abnormalities and worsening renal function, whereas high-dose furosemide therapy was associated with better outcomes.78 Thus, uptitration of loop diuretics is a preferred initial step in the management of patients with diuretic-resistant acute HF. Although combined therapy with a loop diuretic and a thiazide can be helpful in patients with CHF79 or edema,80,81 this strategy increases the frequency of hypokalemia, hypochloremia, hypomagnesemia, alkalosis, and azotemia and requires careful management. The benefits and complications of combined loop and thiazide diuretic therapy are illustrated in the clinical account of a patient with the nephrotic syndrome and resistance to 240 mg daily of furosemide (Figure 6). Dividing the daily furosemide dose in 2 had little effect. The addition of 80 mmol of KCl daily improved the hypokalemia modestly. However, the addition of only 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide daily while maintaining the loop diuretic led to a 10 kg loss of body weight, but hypokalemia returned despite the large dose of oral KCl. The further addition of 100 mg of eplerenone daily to block the MR (mineralocorticosteroid receptor) restored normal serum potassium and led to a small further weight loss.

Figure 6.

Figure 6. Response of a patient with furosemide-resistant edema from the nephrotic syndrome to treatment with diuretics and potassium chloride.

Loop Diuretic Plus CD Diuretic

Amiloride and triamterene block the epithelial sodium channel in the connecting tubule and CD. They can correct hypokalemic metabolic alkalosis since they secondarily inhibit the secretion of K+ and H+. Urine from proteinuric patients contains sufficient proteases such as plasmin to hydrolyze the luminal peptide loops of the epithelial sodium channel, thereby opening the Na+ channel and promoting Na+ reabsorption.82,83 This can be blocked by a CD diuretic. Indeed, CD diuretics enhance furosemide diuresis in children with minimal change glomerulonephritis,84 patients with proteinuria and CHF,85 and in other proteinuric conditions.86 However, randomized clinical trials are presently lacking and CD diuretics can cause dangerous hyperkalemia.

Loop Diuretic Plus Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists

The Aldosterone Targeted Neurohormonal Combined with Natriuresis Therapy in Heart Failure (ATHENA-HF) trial reported that the addition of 100 mg of spironolactone daily to standard diuretic therapy for patients with worsening HF failed to improve outcomes.87 This might be a consequence of prescribing spironolactone for only four days that may be insufficient to accumulate its active metabolite canrenone.

Loop Diuretics Plus PT and DT Diuretic, Mineralocorticosteroid Receptor Antagonists and Aquaretic

Diuretic resistance entails upregulation of the downstream Na+ transporters, thereby leading to impaired natriuresis on the one hand and to enhanced tubular K+ and H+ secretion in the distal nephron thereby leading to hypokalemic metabolic alkalosis on the other. This provides a rationale for segmental nephron blockade with multiple diuretic agents given concurrently to enhance diuretic responses but reduce electrolyte disturbances. Patients with acute HF and severe diuretic resistance treated with furosemide, metolazone, and spironolactone plus, in some, tolvaptan and acetazolamide and supplemental KCl had a daily loss of 3 to 4 L of fluid yet remarkably their serum electrolytes and creatinine were unchanged.88 This novel strategy of segmental nephron blockade merits further prospective evaluation.

Dose Escalation or Intravenous Infusions of Loop Diuretics

Stepwise increases in the daily doses of intravenous furosemide from 125 to 250 to 500 mg failed to increase Na+ or fluid output of patients with refractory CHF.89 Doubling the dose of furosemide in the DOSE study did not affect the global assessment of symptoms in patients with severe HF.90 However, in patients with less severe acute HF, each doubling of the dose of a loop diuretic increased daily Na+ excretion, albeit modestly, by 21 mmol.91 Thus, although dose escalation and twice-daily administration of loop diuretics is an appropriate initial therapy for most patients, increasing the daily dose above the ceiling does not usually relieve diuretic resistance. Many patients become resistant and require additional measures.6,20

Another approach is to change from oral to intravenous loop diuretic administration. Infusions of furosemide, compared with intermittent doses, in patients with HF, increase urine output in some trials but the effects are generally modest,92 often unaccompanied by symptomatic improvement4 and unconfirmed in other trials.90,93,94 This may relate to the rapid development of tubular tolerance22 (Figure 3A).

Long-Acting Formulations

Recently, 20 mg of an extended-release formulation of torsemide, compared with 20 mg of an immediate-release formulation, was reported to double the Na+ and fluid losses without increasing K+ excretion.22 This was related to a longer time on the efficient ascending phase of the natriuresis/torsemide excretion relationship (Figure 3A), a limited time for postdiuretic Na+ retention (Figure 3C) and a better maintained GFR. Torsemide extended-release produced a negative Na+ balance in subjects receiving ≈300 mmol of Na+ daily that, if confirmed, might lessen the need for restriction of salt intake.

Perspectives

Resistance to diuretics is a frequent, but a sometimes preventable or reversible, cause of hospitalization for congestion, and worsening symptoms. Unfortunately, clinical signs and symptoms are often unreliable to detect diuretic resistance. The development of new diuretics, strategies, or combinations is important to overcome diuretic resistance. Many factors can contribute to diuretic resistance that provide rationales for the use of specific interventions. As recently presented,6 these strategies are shown in Figure 7. However, they have not been rigorously tested in clinical trials. Therefore, this should be used as a guide for consideration of appropriate treatment rather than a rigorous algorithm.

Figure 7.

Figure 7. Diagrammatic representation of an approach to the management of diuretic resistance in patients with heart failure. MRA indicates mineralocorticosteroid antagonist; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents; and PT, proximal tubule. *Experimental therapy.

Footnotes

Correspondence to Christopher S. Wilcox, 3800 Reservoir Rd NW, PHC F6003, Washington, DC 20007. Email

References

  • 1. ter Maaten JM, Valente MA, Damman K, Hillege HL, Navis G, Voors AA. Diuretic response in acute heart failure-pathophysiology, evaluation, and therapy.Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015; 12:184–192. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2014.215CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Testani JM, Hanberg JS, Cheng S, Rao V, Onyebeke C, Laur O, Kula A, Chen M, Wilson FP, Darlington A, et al. Rapid and highly accurate prediction of poor loop diuretic natriuretic response in patients with heart failure.Circ Heart Fail. 2016; 9:e002370. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002370LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Kiernan MS, Stevens SR, Tang WHW, Butler J, Anstrom KJ, Birati EY, Grodin JL, Gupta D, Margulies KB, LaRue S, et al; NHLBI Heart Failure Clinical Trials Network Investigators. Determinants of diuretic responsiveness and associated outcomes during acute heart failure hospitalization: an analysis from the NHLBI heart failure network clinical trials.J Card Fail. 2018; 24:428–438. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2018.02.002CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Strobeck JE, Feldschuh J, Miller WL. Heart failure outcomes with volume-guided management.JACC Heart Fail. 2018; 6:940–948. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.06.017CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Miller WL, Mullan BP. Understanding the heterogeneity in volume overload and fluid distribution in decompensated heart failure is key to optimal volume management: role for blood volume quantitation.JACC Heart Fail. 2014; 2:298–305. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2014.02.007CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Hoorn EJ, Wilcox CS, Ellison DH . Chapter 50, diuretics.Brenner and Rector’s the Kidney Eleventh Edition. Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA; 2020:1708–1740.Google Scholar
  • 7. Wilcox CS. New insights into diuretic use in patients with chronic renal disease.J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002; 13:798–805.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Brater DC. Pharmacokinetics of loop diuretics in congestive heart failure.Br Heart J. 1994; 72(suppl 2):S40–S43. doi: 10.1136/hrt.72.2_suppl.s40CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Vasko MR, Cartwright DB, Knochel JP, Nixon JV, Brater DC. Furosemide absorption altered in decompensated congestive heart failure.Ann Intern Med. 1985; 102:314–318. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-102-3-314CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Vargo DL, Kramer WG, Black PK, Smith WB, Serpas T, Brater DC. Bioavailability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of torsemide and furosemide in patients with congestive heart failure.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995; 57:601–609. doi: 10.1016/0009-9236(95)90222-8CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Vormfelde SV, Schirmer M, Hagos Y, Toliat MR, Engelhardt S, Meineke I, Burckhardt G, Nürnberg P, Brockmöller J. Torsemide renal clearance and genetic variation in luminal and basolateral organic anion transporters.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006; 62:323–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02655.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Matthaei J, Brockmöller J, Tzvetkov MV, Sehrt D, Sachse-Seeboth C, Hjelmborg JB, Möller S, Halekoh U, Hofmann U, Schwab M, et al. Heritability of metoprolol and torsemide pharmacokinetics.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015; 98:611–621. doi: 10.1002/cpt.258CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Wilcox CS, Mitch WE, Kelly RA, Skorecki K, Meyer TW, Friedman PA, Souney PF. Response of the kidney to furosemide. I. Effects of salt intake and renal compensation.J Lab Clin Med. 1983; 102:450–458.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Aronson D, Burger AJ. Diuretic response: clinical and hemodynamic predictors and relation to clinical outcome.J Card Fail. 2016; 22:193–200. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.07.006CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Brisco MA, Zile MR, Hanberg JS, Wilson FP, Parikh CR, Coca SG, Tang WH, Testani JM. Relevance of changes in serum creatinine during a heart failure trial of decongestive strategies: insights from the DOSE trial.J Card Fail. 2016; 22:753–760. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2016.06.423CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Brater DC. Diuretic therapy in congestive heart failure.Congest Heart Fail. 2000; 6:197–201.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Wilcox CS, Mitch WE, Kelly RA, Friedman PA, Souney PF, Rayment CM, Meyer TW, Skorecki KL. Factors affecting potassium balance during frusemide administration.Clin Sci (Lond). 1984; 67:195–203. doi: 10.1042/cs0670195CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Kelly RA, Wilcox CS, Mitch WE, Meyer TW, Souney PF, Rayment CM, Friedman PA, Swartz SL. Response of the kidney to furosemide. II. Effect of captopril on sodium balance.Kidney Int. 1983; 24:233–239. doi: 10.1038/ki.1983.149CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Doukky R, Avery E, Mangla A, Collado FM, Ibrahim Z, Poulin MF, Richardson D, Powell LH. Impact of dietary sodium restriction on heart failure outcomes.JACC Heart Fail. 2016; 4:24–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2015.08.007CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Hoorn EJ, Ellison DH. Diuretic resistance.Am J Kidney Dis. 2017; 69:136–142. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.08.027CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Brater DC. Use of diuretics in cirrhosis and nephrotic syndrome.Semin Nephrol. 1999; 19:575–580.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Shah S, Pitt B, Brater DC, Feig PU, Shen W, Khwaja FS, Wilcox CS. Sodium and fluid excretion with torsemide in healthy subjects is limited by the short duration of diuretic action.J Am Heart Assoc. 2017; 6:e006135. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.006135LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Wilcox CS, Guzman NJ, Mitch WE, Kelly RA, Maroni BJ, Souney PF, Rayment CM, Braun L, Colucci R, Loon NR. Na+, K+, and BP homeostasis in man during furosemide: effects of prazosin and captopril.Kidney Int. 1987; 31:135–141. doi: 10.1038/ki.1987.20CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Osborn JL, Holdaas H, Thames MD, DiBona GF. Renal adrenoceptor mediation of antinatriuretic and renin secretion responses to low frequency renal nerve stimulation in the dog.Circ Res. 1983; 53:298–305. doi: 10.1161/01.res.53.3.298LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Almeshari K, Ahlstrom NG, Capraro FE, Wilcox CS. A volume-independent component to postdiuretic sodium retention in humans.J Am Soc Nephrol. 1993; 3:1878–1883.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Huang X, Dorhout Mees E, Vos P, Hamza S, Braam B. Everything we always wanted to know about furosemide but were afraid to ask.Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2016; 310:F958–F971. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00476.2015CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Bell T, Araujo M, Luo Z, Tomlinson J, Leiper J, Welch WJ, Wilcox CS. Regulation of fluid reabsorption in rat or mouse proximal renal tubules by asymmetric dimethylarginine and dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase 1.Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2018; 315:F74–F78. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00560.2017CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Woods LL, DeYoung DR, Smith BE. Regulation of renal hemodynamics after protein feeding: effects of loop diuretics.Am J Physiol. 1991; 261(5 Pt 2):F815–F823. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.1991.261.5.F815CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Ghys A, Denef J, Delarge J, Georges A. Renal effects of the high ceiling diuretic torasemide in rats and dogs.Arzneimittelforschung. 1985; 35:1527–1531.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Nüsing RM, Treude A, Weissenberger C, Jensen B, Bek M, Wagner C, Narumiya S, Seyberth HW. Dominant role of prostaglandin E2 EP4 receptor in furosemide-induced salt-losing tubulopathy: a model for hyperprostaglandin E syndrome/antenatal Bartter syndrome.J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005; 16:2354–2362. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2004070556CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31. Wang J, Zhang Y, Yang X, Wang X, Zhang J, Fang J, Jiang X. Hemodynamic effects of furosemide on renal perfusion as evaluated by ASL-MRI.Acad Radiol. 2012; 19:1194–1200. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2012.04.021CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32. Feola M, Lombardo E, Taglieri C, Vallauri P, Piccolo S, Valle R. Effects of levosimendan/furosemide infusion on plasma brain natriuretic peptide, echocardiographic parameters and cardiac output in end-stage heart failure patients.Med Sci Monit. 2011; 17:PI7–P13. doi: 10.12659/msm.881433CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Araujo M, Solis G, Welch WJ, Wilcox CS. Renal nerve deafferentation attenuates the fall in GFR during intravenous infusion of furosemide in anesthetized rats.Kidney Blood Press Res. 2020; 45:70–83. doi: 10.1159/000504223CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34. Petersen JS. Interactions between furosemide and the renal sympathetic nerves.Pharmacol Toxicol. 1999; 84(suppl 1):1–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0773.1999.tb01946.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35. Simeoni M, Boyde A, Shirley DG, Capasso G, Unwin RJ. Application of red laser video-rate scanning confocal microscopy to in vivo assessment of tubular function in the rat: selective action of diuretics on tubular diameter.Exp Physiol. 2004; 89:181–185. doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2003.002643CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36. Gilmer GG, Deshpande VG, Chou CL, Knepper M. Flow resistance along the rat renal tubule.Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2018; 315:F1398–F1405. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00219.2018CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37. Araujo M, Welch WJ, Zhou X, Sullivan K, Walsh S, Pasternak A, Wilcox CS. Inhibition of ROMK blocks macula densa tubuloglomerular feedback yet causes renal vasoconstriction in anesthetized rats.Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2017; 312:F1120–F1127. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00662.2016CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38. Oppermann M, Hansen PB, Castrop H, Schnermann J. Vasodilatation of afferent arterioles and paradoxical increase of renal vascular resistance by furosemide in mice.Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2007; 293:F279–F287. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00073.2007CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39. Kopp UC. Role of renal sensory nerves in physiological and pathophysiological conditions.Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2015; 308:R79–R95. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00351.2014CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 40. Zheng H, Liu X, Katsurada K, Patel KP. Renal denervation improves sodium excretion in rats with chronic heart failure: effects on expression of renal ENaC and AQP2.Am J Physiol. Heart Circ Physiol. 2019; 317:H958–H968. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00299.2019CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 41. Chen W, Ling Z, Xu Y, Liu Z, Su L, Du H, Xiao P, Lan X, Shan Q, Yin Y. Preliminary effects of renal denervation with saline irrigated catheter on cardiac systolic function in patients with heart failure: a prospective, randomized, controlled, pilot study.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 89:e153–e161. doi: 10.1002/ccd.26475CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42. Gao JQ, Yang W, Liu ZJ. Percutaneous renal artery denervation in patients with chronic systolic heart failure: a randomized controlled trial.Cardiol J. 2019; 26:503–510. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2018.0028CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 43. Tahir E, Koops A, Warncke ML, Starekova J, Neumann JT, Waldeyer C, Avanesov M, Lund GK, Fischer R, Adam G, et al. Effect of renal denervation procedure on left ventricular mass, myocardial strain and diastolic function by CMR on a 12-month follow-up.Jpn J Radiol. 2019; 37:642–650. doi: 10.1007/s11604-019-00854-yCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 44. Motwani JG, Struthers AD. Captopril augments both basal and frusemide-induced natriuresis in normal man by suppression of circulating angiotensin II.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1992; 34:25–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1992.tb04103.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 45. Ahmad T, Jackson K, Rao VS, Tang WHW, Brisco-Bacik MA, Chen HH, Felker GM, Hernandez AF, O’Connor CM, Sabbisetti VS, et al. Worsening renal function in patients with acute heart failure undergoing aggressive diuresis is not associated with tubular injury.Circulation. 2018; 137:2016–2028. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030112LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 46. Goldsmith SR, Francis GS, Cowley AW, Levine TB, Cohn JN. Increased plasma arginine vasopressin levels in patients with congestive heart failure.J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983; 1:1385–1390. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(83)80040-0CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 47. Goldsmith SR. The role of vasopressin in congestive heart failure.Cleve Clin J Med. 2006; 73(suppl 3):S19–S23. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.73.suppl_3.s19CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 48. Lanfear DE, Sabbah HN, Goldsmith SR, Greene SJ, Ambrosy AP, Fought AJ, Kwasny MJ, Swedberg K, Yancy CW, Konstam MA, et al; EVEREST Trial Investigators. Association of arginine vasopressin levels with outcomes and the effect of V2 blockade in patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from the EVEREST trial.Circ Heart Fail. 2013; 6:47–52. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.112.970012LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 49. Kitada S, Kikuchi S, Sonoda H, Yoshida A, Ohte N. Elevation of arginine vasopressin levels following loop diuretic therapy as a prognostic indicator in heart failure.J Int Med Res. 2016; 44:1430–1442. doi: 10.1177/0300060516663779CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 50. Luo X, Jin Q, Wu Y. Tolvaptan add-on therapy in patients with acute heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2020; 8:e00614. doi: 10.1002/prp2.614CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 51. Ghali JK, Farah JO, Daifallah S, Zabalawi HA, Zmily HD. Conivaptan and its role in the treatment of hyponatremia.Drug Des Devel Ther. 2009; 3:253–268. doi: 10.2147/dddt.s4505CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 52. Loon NR, Wilcox CS. Mild metabolic alkalosis impairs the natriuretic response to bumetanide in normal human subjects.Clin Sci (Lond). 1998; 94:287–292. doi: 10.1042/cs0940287CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 53. Hanberg JS, Rao V, Ter Maaten JM, Laur O, Brisco MA, Perry Wilson F, Grodin JL, Assefa M, Samuel Broughton J, Planavsky NJ, et al. Hypochloremia and diuretic resistance in heart failure: mechanistic insights.Circ Heart Fail. 2016; 9:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.003180 e003180. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.003180LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 54. Hropot M, Klaus E, Unwin R, Giebisch G. Diminished diuretic and natriuretic response to furosemide in potassium-depleted rats.Ren Physiol Biochem. 1994; 17:10–20. doi: 10.1159/000173783CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 55. Inoue M, Okajima K, Itoh K, Ando Y, Watanabe N, Yasaka T, Nagase S, Morino Y. Mechanism of furosemide resistance in analbuminemic rats and hypoalbuminemic patients.Kidney Int. 1987; 32:198–203. doi: 10.1038/ki.1987.192CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 56. Chalasani N, Gorski JC, Horlander JC, Craven R, Hoen H, Maya J, Brater DC. Effects of albumin/furosemide mixtures on responses to furosemide in hypoalbuminemic patients.J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001; 12:1010–1016.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 57. Agarwal R, Gorski JC, Sundblad K, Brater DC. Urinary protein binding does not affect response to furosemide in patients with nephrotic syndrome.J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000; 11:1100–1105.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 58. Boer WH, Koomans HA, Dorhout Mees EJ. Renal haemodynamics and sodium handling after hyperoncotic albumin infusion in sodium-restricted normal man.Eur J Clin Invest. 1987; 17:442–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.1987.tb01140.xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 59. Koomans HA, Geers AB, vd Meiracker AH, Roos JC, Boer P, Dorhout Mees EJ. Effects of plasma volume expansion on renal salt handling in patients with the nephrotic syndrome.Am J Nephrol. 1984; 4:227–234. doi: 10.1159/000166814CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 60. Haws RM, Baum M. Efficacy of albumin and diuretic therapy in children with nephrotic syndrome.Pediatrics. 1993; 91:1142–1146.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 61. Cao W, Zhou QG, Nie J, Wang GB, Liu Y, Zhou ZM, Hou FF. Albumin overload activates intrarenal renin-angiotensin system through protein kinase C and NADPH oxidase-dependent pathway.J Hypertens. 2011; 29:1411–1421. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32834786f0CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 62. Verbrugge FH, Martens P, Ameloot K, Haemels V, Penders J, Dupont M, Tang WHW, Droogné W, Mullens W. Acetazolamide to increase natriuresis in congestive heart failure at high risk for diuretic resistance.Eur J Heart Fail. 2019; 21:1415–1422. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1478CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 63. Fallahzadeh MA, Dormanesh B, Fallahzadeh MK, Roozbeh J, Fallahzadeh MH, Sagheb MM. Acetazolamide and hydrochlorothiazide followed by furosemide versus furosemide and hydrochlorothiazide followed by furosemide for the treatment of adults with nephrotic edema: a randomized trial.Am J Kidney Dis. 2017; 69:420–427. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.10.022CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 64. Cil O, Haggie PM, Phuan PW, Tan JA, Verkman AS. Small-molecule inhibitors of pendrin potentiate the diuretic action of furosemide.J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016; 27:3706–3714. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2015121312CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 65. Wilcox CS, Shen W, Boulton DW, Leslie BR, Griffen SC. Interaction between the sodium-glucose-linked transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin and the loop diuretic bumetanide in normal human subjects.J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7:e007046.doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007046LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 66. Wilcox CS. Antihypertensive and renal mechanisms of SGLT2 (Sodium-Glucose Linked Transporter 2) inhibitors.Hypertension. 2020; 75:894–901. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.11684LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 67. Gonzalez-Vicente A, Saez F, Monzon CM, Asirwatham J, Garvin JL. Thick ascending limb sodium transport in the pathogenesis of hypertension.Physiol Rev. 2019; 99:235–309. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00055.2017CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 68. Reyes-Pardo H, Bautista R, Vargas-Robles H, Rios A, Sánchez D, Escalante B. Role of sodium/glucose cotransporter inhibition on a rat model of angiotensin II-dependent kidney damage.BMC Nephrol. 2019; 20:292. doi: 10.1186/s12882-019-1490-zCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 69. Griffin M, Rao VS, Ivey-Miranda J, Fleming J, Mahoney D, Maulion C, Suda N, Siwakoti K, Ahmad T, Jacoby D, et al. Empagliflozin in heart failure: diuretic and cardio-renal effects [published online ahead of print May 15, 2020].Circulation. 2020. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.045691LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 70. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, Køber L, Kosiborod MN, Martinez FA, Ponikowski P, Sabatine MS, Anand IS, Bělohlávek J, et al; DAPA-HF Trial Committees and Investigators. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.N Engl J Med. 2019; 381:1995–2008. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 71. Kaissling B, Bachmann S, Kriz W. Structural adaptation of the distal convoluted tubule to prolonged furosemide treatment.Am J Physiol. 1985; 248(3 Pt 2):F374–F381. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.1985.248.3.F374CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 72. Kaissling B, Stanton BA. Adaptation of distal tubule and collecting duct to increased sodium delivery. I. Ultrastructure.Am J Physiol. 1988; 255(6 Pt 2):F1256–F1268. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.1988.255.6.F1256CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 73. Kim J, Welch WJ, Cannon JK, Tisher CC, Madsen KM. Immunocytochemical response of type A and type B intercalated cells to increased sodium chloride delivery.Am J Physiol. 1992; 262(2 Pt 2):F288–F302. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.1992.262.2.F288CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 74. Ellison DH, Velázquez H, Wright FS. Adaptation of the distal convoluted tubule of the rat. Structural and functional effects of dietary salt intake and chronic diuretic infusion.J Clin Invest. 1989; 83:113–126. doi: 10.1172/JCI113847CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 75. Rao VS, Planavsky N, Hanberg JS, Ahmad T, Brisco-Bacik MA, Wilson FP, Jacoby D, Chen M, Tang WHW, Cherney DZI, et al. Compensatory distal reabsorption drives diuretic resistance in human heart failure.J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017; 28:3414–3424. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2016111178CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 76. Loon NR, Wilcox CS, Unwin RJ. Mechanism of impaired natriuretic response to furosemide during prolonged therapy.Kidney Int. 1989; 36:682–689. doi: 10.1038/ki.1989.246CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 77. Kissling KT, Pickworth KK. Comparison of the effects of combination diuretic therapy with oral hydrochlorothiazide or intravenous chlorothiazide in patients receiving intravenous furosemide therapy for the treatment of heart failure.Pharmacotherapy. 2014; 34:882–887. doi: 10.1002/phar.1456CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 78. Brisco-Bacik MA, Ter Maaten JM, Houser SR, Vedage NA, Rao V, Ahmad T, Wilson FP, Testani JM. Outcomes associated with a strategy of adjuvant metolazone or high-dose loop diuretics in acute decompensated heart failure: a propensity analysis.J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7:e009149. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009149LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 79. Dormans TP, Gerlag PG. Combination of high-dose furosemide and hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of refractory congestive heart failure.Eur Heart J. 1996; 17:1867–1874. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a014805CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 80. Tanaka M, Oida E, Nomura K, Nogaki F, Fukatsu A, Uemura K, Yashiro M, Kimura T, Muso E, Ono T. The Na+-excreting efficacy of indapamide in combination with furosemide in massive edema.Clin Exp Nephrol. 2005; 9:122–126. doi: 10.1007/s10157-005-0339-xCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 81. Knauf H, Mutschler E. Sequential nephron blockade breaks resistance to diuretics in edematous states.J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1997; 29:367–372. doi: 10.1097/00005344-199703000-00010CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 82. Zheng H, Liu X, Sharma NM, Li Y, Pliquett RU, Patel KP. Urinary proteolytic activation of renal epithelial Na+ channels in chronic heart failure.Hypertension. 2016; 67:197–205. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.05838LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 83. Svenningsen P, Bistrup C, Friis UG, Bertog M, Haerteis S, Krueger B, Stubbe J, Jensen ON, Thiesson HC, Uhrenholt TR, et al. Plasmin in nephrotic urine activates the epithelial sodium channel.J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 20:299–310. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2008040364CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 84. Guigonis VAbstract 135a.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2001.Google Scholar
  • 85. Allman S, Norris RJ. An open, parallel group study comparing a frusemide/amiloride diuretic and a diuretic containing cyclopenthiazide with sustained release potassium in the treatment of congestive cardiac failure–a multicentre general practice study.J Int Med Res. 1990; 18(suppl 2):17B–23B.MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 86. Svenningsen P, Andersen H, Nielsen LH, Jensen BL. Urinary serine proteases and activation of ENaC in kidney–implications for physiological renal salt handling and hypertensive disorders with albuminuria.Pflugers Arch. 2015; 467:531–542. doi: 10.1007/s00424-014-1661-5CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 87. Butler J, Anstrom KJ, Felker GM, Givertz MM, Kalogeropoulos AP, Konstam MA, Mann DL, Margulies KB, McNulty SE, Mentz RJ, et al; National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Heart Failure Clinical Research Network. Efficacy and safety of spironolactone in acute heart failure: the ATHENA-HF randomized clinical trial.JAMA Cardiol. 2017; 2:950–958. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2198CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 88. Goyfman M, Zamudio P, Jang K, Chee J, Miranda C, Butler J, Wadhwa NK. Combined aquaretic and diuretic therapy in acute heart failure.Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis. 2017; 10:129–134. doi: 10.2147/IJNRD.S135660CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 89. Paterna S, Di Gaudio F, La Rocca V, Balistreri F, Greco M, Torres D, Lupo U, Rizzo G, di Pasquale P, Indelicato S, et al. Hypertonic saline in conjunction with high-dose furosemide improves dose-response curves in worsening refractory congestive heart failure.Adv Ther. 2015; 32:971–982. doi: 10.1007/s12325-015-0254-9CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 90. Felker GM, Lee KL, Bull DA, Redfield MM, Stevenson LW, Goldsmith SR, LeWinter MM, Deswal A, Rouleau JL, Ofili EO, et al; NHLBI Heart Failure Clinical Research Network. Diuretic strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.N Engl J Med. 2011; 364:797–805. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1005419CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 91. Ter Maaten JM, Rao VS, Hanberg JS, Perry Wilson F, Bellumkonda L, Assefa M, Sam Broughton J, D’Ambrosi J, Wilson Tang WH, Damman K, et al. Renal tubular resistance is the primary driver for loop diuretic resistance in acute heart failure.Eur J Heart Fail. 2017; 19:1014–1022. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.757CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 92. Kuriyama A, Urushidani S. Continuous versus intermittent administration of furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart Fail Rev. 2019; 24:31–39. doi: 10.1007/s10741-018-9727-7CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 93. Wu MY, Chang NC, Su CL, Hsu YH, Chen TW, Lin YF, Wu CH, Tam KW. Loop diuretic strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.J Crit Care. 2014; 29:2–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.10.009CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 94. Palazzuoli A, Pellegrini M, Franci B, Beltrami M, Ruocco G, Gonnelli S, Angelini GD, Nuti R. Short and long-term effects of continuous versus intermittent loop diuretics treatment in acute heart failure with renal dysfunction.Intern Emerg Med. 2015; 10:41–49. doi: 10.1007/s11739-014-1112-5CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

eLetters(0)

eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.

Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.