CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT03259165N-FURIOUSUpdated Aug 20, 2024Results posted

Nitroglycerin vs. Furosemide Using Lung Ultrasound Pilot Trial

A Phase 2 interventional study of Nitrates and Loop Diuretics in Heart Failure, Heart Failure Acute and Acute Cardiac Failure, sponsored by Indiana University. Terminated at 3 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 21 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-08-20.

Sponsored by Indiana University · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
COVID-19 pandemic. Initially had planned to resume study, but ultimately decided to close.
Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
52
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
21 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study 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.

Read the 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.

02

Conditions studied

  • 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
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
21 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

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

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
04

Study design

Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
52 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • 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.

    Drug: Nitrates

  • 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.

    Drug: Loop Diuretics

Interventions

  • DrugNitrates

    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: 1. IV furosemide (unless already given) (All patients receive at minimum 20 mg IV furosemide or equivalent) 2. SL nitroglycerin (400 ucg) will be given every 5 minutes, a total of three times. (May be repeated) (Held if SBP decreases to \< 120 mmHg) 3. Reassessment every 2 hours. If LUS B-lines \>15, repeat step 2. If \< 15, stop algorithm.

    Also known as: SL or IV Nitrates

  • DrugLoop Diuretics

    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: 1. Patients receive 1 inch topical nitropaste 2. IV Loop diuretic dose = patients total oral dose (max dose of 200 mg IV) 3. Reassessment every 2 hours. If LUS B-lines \>15, repeat step 2. If \< 15, stop algorithm.

    Also known as: IV Loop Diuretics

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. The Total Number of B-lines at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management

    The total number of B-lines at the conclusion of ED AHF management or maximum of 6 hours after enrollment, whichever comes first.

    Time frame: During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours

Secondary outcomes

  1. Dyspnea Assessment

    A patient reported measurement of dyspnea using 7-point Likert scales in a standardized position, ranging from Markedly worse, Moderately Worse, Minimally Worse, No Change to Minimally Improved, Moderately Improved, Markedly Improved

    Time frame: During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours

  2. B-lines <= 15 at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management

    B-lines \<= 15 at the conclusion of ED AHF management or maximum of 6 hours after enrollment, whichever comes first

    Time frame: During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours

Other outcomes

  1. Total DAOOH

    Total days alive and out of hospital through 30 days post-discharge

    Time frame: Up through 30 days post discharge

  2. Association of B-lines at Discharge and 30-day Outcome

    Time frame: Up through 30 days post discharge

  3. Time to Reach B-lines <15

    Time frame: Throughout hospitalization, on average 5-7 days

  4. Association of Baseline, Discharge, and Change of B-lines With 30-day Outcomes

    Time frame: Up through 30 days post discharge

  5. All Cause Readmissions, All Cause ED Re-visits

    Time frame: 30 days post discharge

  6. Change in Physical Exam Findings and Body Weight From Presentation to Pre-discharge

    Physical exam includes peripheral edema, jugular venous distention, pulmonary and cardiac auscultation

    Time frame: From admission to pre-discharge from the hospital, on average 5 to 7 days

06

Results

Posted Aug 20, 2024
Limitations and caveats
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, enrollment was halted. The nature of the study was to enroll patients with AHF signs and symptoms. The principle symptom is shortness of breath, a common symptom during the peak of COVID-19. Further, employees were not allowed into the ED setting to enroll patients, when much less was known about COVID-19.

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneNitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense Strategy
Started2725
Completed2624
Not completed11
Withdrew: Covid 19 pandemic11

Outcome measures

PrimaryThe Total Number of B-lines at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management

The total number of B-lines at the conclusion of ED AHF management or maximum of 6 hours after enrollment, whichever comes first.

Time frame:
During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
Reported as:
Mean · Number of B-lines
The Total Number of B-lines at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management
Number of B-linesNitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense Strategy
The Total Number of B-lines at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management29 ± 22.532 ± 19.4
SecondaryDyspnea Assessment

A patient reported measurement of dyspnea using 7-point Likert scales in a standardized position, ranging from Markedly worse, Moderately Worse, Minimally Worse, No Change to Minimally Improved, Moderately Improved, Markedly Improved

Time frame:
During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
Reported as:
Number · participants
Dyspnea Assessment
participantsNitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense Strategy
Markedly Improved31
Moderately Improved13
Minimally Improved40
No Change11
Minimally Worse10
SecondaryB-lines <= 15 at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management

B-lines \<= 15 at the conclusion of ED AHF management or maximum of 6 hours after enrollment, whichever comes first

Time frame:
During the ED phase of management, no more than 6 hours
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
B-lines <= 15 at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management
ParticipantsNitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense Strategy
B-lines <= 15 at the Conclusion of ED AHF Management20
Other pre-specifiedTotal DAOOH

Total days alive and out of hospital through 30 days post-discharge

Time frame:
Up through 30 days post discharge

Results for this outcome have not been posted.

Other pre-specifiedAssociation of B-lines at Discharge and 30-day Outcome
Time frame:
Up through 30 days post discharge

Results for this outcome have not been posted.

Other pre-specifiedTime to Reach B-lines <15
Time frame:
Throughout hospitalization, on average 5-7 days

Results for this outcome have not been posted.

Other pre-specifiedAssociation of Baseline, Discharge, and Change of B-lines With 30-day Outcomes
Time frame:
Up through 30 days post discharge

Results for this outcome have not been posted.

Other pre-specifiedAll Cause Readmissions, All Cause ED Re-visits
Time frame:
30 days post discharge

Results for this outcome have not been posted.

Other pre-specifiedChange in Physical Exam Findings and Body Weight From Presentation to Pre-discharge

Physical exam includes peripheral edema, jugular venous distention, pulmonary and cardiac auscultation

Time frame:
From admission to pre-discharge from the hospital, on average 5 to 7 days

Results for this outcome have not been posted.

Adverse events

Collected over The study period during which AEs must be reported begins after informed consent is obtained and initiation of study treatment and for 5 days after ending study treatment. Patients will be followed for 30 days for ED visits, re-hospitalization, and mortality. Subject's hospital discharge summaries will be examined at hospital discharge and all non-exempt AEs will be investigated by examining necessary medical records.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Nitrate Intense Strategy1/27 (3.7%)0/27 (0%)3/27 (11.1%)
Diuretic Intense Strategy2/25 (8%)1/25 (4%)1/25 (4%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventNitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense Strategy
DeathCardiac disorders0/271/25
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventNitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense Strategy
CTCAERenal and urinary disorders3/271/25

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Nitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense StrategyTotal
<=18 years000
Between 18 and 65 years191837
>=65 years8715
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Nitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense StrategyTotal
Female4610
Male231942
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Nitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense StrategyTotal
Hispanic or Latino000
Not Hispanic or Latino262450
Unknown or Not Reported112
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Nitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense StrategyTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native000
Asian101
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American111526
White151025
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported000
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Nitrate Intense StrategyDiuretic Intense StrategyTotal
United States272552
07

Study locations

3 sites
  • Eskenazi Health
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, United States
  • IU Health Methodist Hospital
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, United States
  • Vanderbilt University
    Nashville, Tennessee 37235, United States
08

References and documents

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Jul 30, 2019

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03259165
Lead sponsor
Indiana University
Collaborators
Vanderbilt University
Responsible party
PETER S PANG (Associate Professor, Indiana University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 23, 2017
Start date
Dec 14, 2017
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2021
Completion
Dec 31, 2021
Results posted
Aug 20, 2024
Last update
Aug 20, 2024

Study contacts

Peter S Pang, MD
principal investigator · Indiana University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Jul 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion