Diuresis is a cornerstone of managing patients with symptomatic heart failure. Many experts start oral therapy with furosemide, and switch to torsemide or bumetanide if the patient cannot effectively be diuresed with high-dose furosemide (i.e., total daily dose 200mg or greater). This is based on the effectiveness of furosemide in most patients, familiarity of dosing with most health care providers, and ease of conversion between intravenous and oral forms. However, its bioavailability is only approximately 50%, compared to torsemide and bumetanide, with their bioavailability of 80-100%; such pharmacologic properties make it reasonable to try switching to either of these latter agents if an adequate diuretic response is not achieved with furosemide.
However, there are few high-quality studies that have actually analyzed the comparative efficacy of the various loop diuretics. One meta-analysis evaluated for differences among loop diuretics (furosemide, torsemide, bumetanide, and azosemide) on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure-related hospitalization, hypokalemia, and acute renal failure. The study did not find any significant differences among the loop diuretics with regard to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or hypokalemia, although torsemide use was associated with the lowest risk of heart failure-related hospitalization and a trend towards less acute renal failure. However, this study admittedly was limited by the component trials having diverse methodologies, and most being conducted prior to the year 2000. There is a need for newer, methodologically sound and robust studies to better elucidate differences, if any, among the loop diuretics. For now, however, it is reasonable to use them interchangeably and guide selection based on clinical response.
References: READY: relative efficacy of loop diuretics in patients with chronic systolic heart failure-a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials