Clinical trial NCT03259165: Nitroglycerin vs. Furosemide Using Lung Ultrasound Pilot Trial
Official title: Nitroglycerin vs. Furosemide Using Lung Ultrasound Pilot Trial (N-FURIOUS)
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: TERMINATED
Phase: PHASE2
Conditions: Heart Failure
Heart Failure Acute
Acute Cardiac Failure
Acute Cardiac Pulmonary Edema
Keywords: Heart Failure
Acute Heart Failure
Pulmonary Edema
Lung Ultrasound
Extra vascular lung water
B-lines
Diuretics
Nitrates
Lead sponsor: Indiana University
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Vanderbilt University
First posted: 2017-08-23
Enrollment: 52
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 21
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: Nearly 80% of acute heart failure (AHF) patients admitted to the hospital are initially treated in the emergency department (ED). Once admitted, within 30 days post-discharge, 27% of patients are re-hospitalized or die. Attempts to improve outcomes with novel therapies have all failed. The evidence for existing AHF therapies are poor: No currently used AHF treatment is known to improve outcomes. ED treatment is largely the same today as 40 years ago. Congestion, such as difficulty breathing, weight gain, and leg swelling, is the primary reason why patients present to the hospital for AHF. Treating congestion is the cornerstone of AHF management. Yet half of all AHF patients leave the hospital inadequately decongested.

Although it is the investigators' belief patients are often inadequately decongested in the ED, it is common teaching within emergency medicine to focus on vasodilators and avoid or minimize diuretics, especially in those patients with elevated blood pressure. This practice is largely driven by retrospective analyses or small studies suggesting vasodilators are efficacious and IV loop diuretics may be associated with harm. The evidence base to guide early ED management is poor, and the AHA/ACC guidelines provide little to no guidance for ED treatment. This reflects the lack of high quality data, a critical unmet need that the investigators will address in this study.

Using clearance of LUS B-lines as the study endpoint, the investigators will study whether a diuretic intense vs. nitrate intense strategy achieves better decongestion. Although nearly two decades old, a small study of 100 patients suggested a nitrate intense strategy led to better outcomes in AHF patients with pulmonary edema when compared with a diuretic intense strategy. The investigators aim to perform a small pilot study, in hypertensive patients (SBP \> 140mmHg) to test such a strategy to inform a larger, more definitive multicenter randomized trial.

Detailed description: The primary goal of the N-FURIOUS pilot trial is to determine whether a nitrate intense strategy safely reduces congestion, defined by LUS B-lines, better than a diuretic intense strategy.

This pilot trial is designed to provide the necessary and sufficient information for a larger, definitive trial.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACT:

Over one million hospitalizations for AHF occur every year in the US. Within 30 days after hospitalization, over 25% of AHF patients will be dead or re-hospitalized. By one year after hospitalization, up to 67% of patients will be re-hospitalized and 36% will be dead. Worldwide, the costs of AHF exceed 100 billion annually. For patients aged 65 years and older, AHF is the most common and most expensive reason for hospitalization. Despite major reductions in morbidity and mortality for chronic HF, considerably less progress has been seen in AHF.

The emergency department (ED) initiates diagnosis and management for the vast majority of AHF patients. Nearly 80% of all admissions originate from the ED. Delays in diagnosis, misdiagnosis, and delayed or improper treatment are costly, associated with greater morbidity and mortality. Despite this crucial starting role, ED AHF pharmacological management today is largely the same as 40 years ago. In fact, guidelines state: "the treatment of AHF remains largely opinion-based with little good evidence to guide therapy." Consensus statements from the American Heart Association as well as a working group from the NHLBI on ED AHF management further corroborate this lack of evidence: "the evidence base on which this foundation of acute care is built is astonishly thin." There remains a critical unmet need for evidence based ED AHF management.

Limitations of Current AHF Therapy:

There are currently no Class I, Level of Evidence A therapeutic guideline recommendations for AHF, highlighting the unmet need. In fact, therapeutic recommendations from the ACCF/AHA begin with hospital based management, highlighting the absence of ED based evidence. The last ED based guidelines were published in 2007 and have yet to be updated. The investigators argue this lack of evidence leads to tremendous variation in ED care. Combined, this contributes to worse outcomes.

Targeting Congestion in AHF:

Freedom from congestion is associated with improved outcomes; yet many patients leave the hospital inadequately decongested. In fact, many patients leave the hospital without a pre-discharge assessment of congestion. The investigators would argue, many ED AHF patients are poorly assessed prior to hospitalization. The absence of robust, reliable methods to assess congestion is a primary reason why it is not assessed. A recent consensus statement published in 2010 highlights this fact: "...no method to assess congestion prior to discharge has been validated." While physical exam is currently the cornerstone of congestion assessment, it lacks sensitivity and inter-rater reliability. The ED is the beginning of AHF management for \>75% of admitted patients; delays in diagnosis, misdiagnosis, and resultant delays in management are associated with greater morbidity and mortality.

Initial Therapy:

IV loop diuretics are the mainstay of AHF management. Yet emergency physicians are often reluctant to use IV loop diuretics, largely influenced by small studies and retrospective studies suggesting an association with harm. Nitrates are either recommended above diuretics or even to replace diuretics in popular blogs, podcasts, or online forums. Arguably, neither IV loop diuretics nor nitrates have definitive outcome data regarding efficacy or harm. This is evident in guidelines, where IV loop diuretics receive a class I, B indication, and nitrates a IIb, A recommendation. The evidence that does exist supports their use. Whether one should be used before another, both, how to combine them, and in whom, is not well defined.

Lung Ultrasound as an Endpoint:

For years, the lungs have been considered 'off-limits' to ultrasound: with aerated lungs, the ultrasound beam is reflected and scattered due to acoustic mismatch. However, in the setting of pulmonary congestion, extra vascular lung water (EVLW) can be directly visualized and quantitated. Lung ultrasound measurement of B-lines are an objective, semi-quantitative measure of extra vascular lung water (EVLW). B-lines are well-defined, vertical echogenic lines, originating from water-thickened interlobular septa. They are a marker of congestion.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Age ≥ 21 years
* Presents with shortness of breath at rest or with minimal exertion
* Clinical diagnosis of AHF and presence of \> 15 total bilateral B-lines distributed in at least 4 zones on initial LUS
* Hx of chronic HF and ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
* \[Chest radiograph consistent with AHF
* Jugular venous distension
* Pulmonary rales on auscultation
* Lower extremity edema
* BNP \> 500pg/mL\]

Exclusion Criteria:

* Chronic renal dysfunction, including ESRD or eGFR \< 20 ml//min/1.73m2.
* Shock of any kind. Any requirement for vasopressors or inotropes.
* SBP \< 120
* Need for immediate intubation
* Acute Coronary Syndrome OR new ST-segment elevation/depression on EKG. (troponin release outside of ACS is allowed)
* Fever \>101.5ºF
* End stage HF: transplant list, ventricular assist device
* Anemia requiring transfusion
* Known interstitial lung disease
* Suspected acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
* Pregnant or recently pregnant within the last 6 months
* Severe valvular disease
* Anuria
* Allergy or hypersensitivity to nitroglycerin, furosemide or sulfa
* Concern for cardiac tamponade or restrictive cardiomyopathy
* Elevated intracranial pressure
* Recent use of PDE5 inhibitors

Primary outcomes:
measure: The Total Number of B-lines at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management
timeFrame: During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Dyspnea Assessment
timeFrame: During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
measure: B-lines <= 15 at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management
timeFrame: During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
Other outcomes:
measure: Total DAOOH
timeFrame: Up through 30 days post discharge
measure: Association of B-lines at Discharge and 30-day Outcome
timeFrame: Up through 30 days post discharge
measure: Time to Reach B-lines <15
timeFrame: Throughout hospitalization, on average 5-7 days
measure: Association of Baseline, Discharge, and Change of B-lines With 30-day Outcomes
timeFrame: Up through 30 days post discharge
measure: All Cause Readmissions, All Cause ED Re-visits
timeFrame: 30 days post discharge
measure: Change in Physical Exam Findings and Body Weight From Presentation to Pre-discharge
timeFrame: From admission to pre-discharge from the hospital, on average 5 to 7 days
Locations:
city: Indianapolis
country: United States
facility: Eskenazi Health
state: Indiana
city: Indianapolis
country: United States
facility: IU Health Methodist Hospital
state: Indiana
city: Nashville
country: United States
facility: Vanderbilt University
state: Tennessee
Study officials:
affiliation: Indiana University
name: Peter S Pang, MD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References: