Volume overload is an important clinical target in heart failure management, typically addressed using loop diuretics. An important and challenging subset of heart failure patients exhibit fluid overload despite significant doses of loop diuretics. One approach to overcome loop diuretic resistance is the addition of a thiazide-type diuretic to produce diuretic synergy via "sequential nephron blockade," first described more than 40 years ago. Although potentially able to induce diuresis in patients otherwise resistant to high doses of loop diuretics, this strategy has not been subjected to large-scale clinical trials to establish safety and clinical efficacy. We summarize the existing literature evaluating the combination of loop and thiazide diuretics in patients with heart failure in order to describe the possible benefits and hazards associated with this therapy. Combination diuretic therapy using any of several thiazide-type diuretics can more than double daily urine sodium excretion to induce weight loss and edema resolution, at the risk of inducing severe hypokalemia in addition to hyponatremia, hypotension, and worsening renal function. We provide considerations about prudent use of this therapy and review potential misconceptions about this long-used diuretic approach. Finally, we seek to highlight the need for pragmatic clinical trials for this commonly used therapy.

Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem leading to frequent hospitalizations, impaired quality of life, and shortened life expectancy. Heart failure leads to a chronic inability to meet metabolic requirements of end organs or skeletal muscle. Current literature lacks comprehensive descriptions of HF effects on hepatic function. In this review paper, we summarize the literature that is available in hopes of highlighting the key differences in clinical presentation, histological findings, and biochemical profiles of patients who present with both acute and chronic liver injury secondary to HF. We further discuss the use of liver function tests as prognostic markers in patients with HF, as well as the implications of liver injury on drug metabolism in this patient population. Finally, we provide recommendations regarding the management of both types of liver injury in HF patients.

Intravenous diuretics are the cornerstone of management for patients hospitalized for heart failure. Physiologic data suggest that intermittent high-dose furosemide promotes neuro-hormonal activation, which a slow continuous infusion might remediate. However, the limited clinical data comparing dosing schemes are confounded. This study was a randomized, open-label, single-center trial of twice-daily bolus injection versus continuous infusion furosemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure and volume overload. The primary outcome was change in creatinine from admission to hospital day 3 or discharge. Twenty-one patients were randomized to bolus injection and 20 patients to continuous infusion. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study arms except for gender, with a mean age of 60 ± 15 years, a mean ejection fraction of 35 ± 19%, and a mean creatinine level of 1.9 ± 1.2 mg/dl. The mean doses of furosemide were similar between arms over the first 48 hours (162 ± 48 and 162 ± 52 mg/24 hours). None of the outcomes differed significantly between bolus and continuous dosing from admission to hospital day 3 or discharge (mean change in creatinine −0.02 vs 0.13 mg/dl, p = 0.18; urine output 5,113 vs 4,894 ml, p = 0.78; length of stay 8.8 vs 9.9 days, p = 0.69). All patients survived to discharge. In conclusion, there were no substantial differences between bolus injection and continuous infusion of equal doses of furosemide for the treatment of patients hospitalized with heart failure. Given the high prevalence of heart failure hospitalization and the disparate results of small studies regarding optimal dosing of loop diuretics to treat these patients, larger multicenter blinded studies are needed.