- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT03259165
Nitroglycerin vs. Furosemide Using Lung Ultrasound Pilot Trial (N-FURIOUS)
Nitroglycerin vs. Furosemide Using Lung Ultrasound Pilot Trial (N-FURIOUS)
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.
Study Overview
Status
Intervention / Treatment
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.
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Phase 2
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Indiana
-
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, 46202
- IU Health Methodist Hospital
-
Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, 46202
- Eskenazi Health
-
-
Tennessee
-
Nashville, Tennessee, United States, 37235
- Vanderbilt University
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
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
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: Nitrate Intense Strategy
Patients randomized to the Nitrate intense strategy will be treated according to protocol with nitrates in combination with IV loop diuretics.
This protocol only involves therapies used in everyday AHF clinical practice.
|
For patients randomized to the Nitrate intense arm, the treatment protocol will be initiated and continued until there is a decrease in B-lines to ≤ 15 or 6 hours of care has been delivered, whichever comes first. Treatment protocol:
Other Names:
|
Experimental: Diuretic Intense Strategy
Patients randomized to the Diuretic intense strategy will be treated according to protocol with IV loop diuretics in combination with nitrates.
This protocol only involves therapies used in everyday AHF clinical practice.
|
For patients randomized to the Diuretic intense arm, the treatment protocol will be initiated and continued until there is a decrease in B-lines to ≤ 15 or 6 hours of care has been delivered, whichever comes first. Treatment protocol:
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
The total number of B-lines at the conclusion of ED AHF management
Time Frame: During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
|
The total number of B-lines at the conclusion of ED AHF management or maximum of 6 hours after enrollment, whichever comes first.
|
During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Dyspnea assessment
Time Frame: During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
|
A patient reported measurement of dyspnea using both 5 and 7-point Likert scales in a standardized position
|
During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
|
B-lines <= 15 at the conclusion of ED AHF management
Time Frame: During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
|
B-lines <= 15 at the conclusion of ED AHF management or maximum of 6 hours after enrollment, whichever comes first
|
During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
|
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Total DAOOH
Time Frame: Up through 30 days post discharge
|
Total days alive and out of hospital through 30 days post-discharge
|
Up through 30 days post discharge
|
Association of B-lines at discharge and 30-day outcome
Time Frame: Up through 30 days post discharge
|
Up through 30 days post discharge
|
|
Time to reach B-lines <15
Time Frame: Throughout hospitalization, on average 5-7 days
|
Throughout hospitalization, on average 5-7 days
|
|
Association of baseline, discharge, and change of b-lines with 30-day outcomes
Time Frame: Up through 30 days post discharge
|
Up through 30 days post discharge
|
|
All Cause readmissions, All cause ED re-visits
Time Frame: 30 days post discharge
|
30 days post discharge
|
|
Change in physical exam findings and body weight from presentation to pre-discharge
Time Frame: From admission to pre-discharge from the hospital, on average 5 to 7 days
|
Physical exam includes peripheral edema, jugular venous distention, pulmonary and cardiac auscultation
|
From admission to pre-discharge from the hospital, on average 5 to 7 days
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Collaborators
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
- 17IRG33411129
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Heart Failure
-
Tufts Medical CenterMetro West Medical CenterCompletedCongestive Heart Failure | Diastolic Heart Failure | Systolic Heart FailureUnited States
-
Abbott Medical DevicesCompletedHeart Failure | Heart Failure, Diastolic | Heart Failure, Systolic | Heart Failure NYHA Class II | Heart Failure NYHA Class III | Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction | Heart Failure NYHA Class IV | Heart Failure With Normal Ejection Fraction | Heart Failure; With Decompensation | Heart Failure...United States, Canada
-
Manipal UniversityUnknownHeart Failure | Decompensated Heart Failure | Acute Heart Failure | Diastolic Heart Failure | Systolic Heart FailureIndia
-
VA Eastern Colorado Health Care SystemNational Institute on Aging (NIA)CompletedHeart Failure | Heart Failure, Diastolic | Heart Failure, Systolic | Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction | Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction | Heart Failure; With Decompensation | Heart Failure,Congestive | Heart Failure AcuteUnited States
-
University Hospital, MontpellierCompletedHeart Failure | Diastolic Heart Failure | Systolic Heart Failure Stage CFrance
-
Wake Forest UniversityCompletedHeart Failure, Congestive | Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
-
Lancaster General HospitalLouise von Hess Medical Research InstituteEnrolling by invitationDiastolic Heart FailureUnited States
-
Wake Forest UniversityNational Institute on Aging (NIA)CompletedHeart Failure, Congestive | Diastolic Heart FailureUnited States
-
Giresun UniversityIstanbul University - Cerrahpasa (IUC)RecruitingHeart Failure | Diastolic Heart Failure | Systolic Heart FailureTurkey
-
US Department of Veterans AffairsCompleted
Clinical Trials on Nitrates
-
Universidad Católica San Antonio de MurciaCompleted
-
Ministry of Health, Saudi ArabiaUnknown
-
Ain Shams UniversityRecruiting
-
Gladwin, Mark, MDNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); University of Pittsburgh; National...WithdrawnPulmonary Hypertension | Heart Failure With Normal Ejection Fraction | Pulmonary Heart Disease and Diseases of Pulmonary CirculationUnited States
-
University of TorontoSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre; Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and other collaboratorsCompleted
-
University of Mississippi Medical CenterTerminatedVascular Function | Racial DisparityUnited States
-
University of CaraboboNorthern Metropolitan Hospital; Venezuelan Foundation of Heart Failure; Clinical...Completed
-
Gruppo Italiano Multidisciplinare per lo Studio...Completed
-
Alere San DiegoTerminatedHeart FailureUnited States, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden
-
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli...IRCCS Policlinico S. Donato; Centro Cardiologico MonzinoRecruitingMyocardial Infarction With Non-Obstructive Coronary ArteriesItaly