Abstract
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is a socioeconomic burden in Japan as well as other developed countries. Diuretics are widely used to attenuate symptoms and signs of congestion in both heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction, although their effects on long-term prognosis of both phenotypes of heart failure have not been demonstrated because of an ethical difficulty in designing a randomized and prospective clinical trial. Guidelines do not provide any guidance on therapy choice, and physicians blindly choose furosemide among loop diuretics in current clinical settings. However, several clinical studies have suggested that the effects of loop diuretics are not consistent, and that furosemide is not necessarily preferable as compared with other loop diuretics. We should pay attention to the choice of loop diuretics. Regarding the improvement of long-term prognosis, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor blocker and β-blocker are proven effective for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, none of these drugs have improved prognosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in clinical trials. Observational studies and subanalysis of clinical trials suggest the benefits of these drugs in this phenotype of heart failure. All of clinical trials and observational studies present facts to us, and let us recognize that “one size fits all approach” may be a cause for a lack of evidence about the therapeutic strategy of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction until now. We have to make efforts to clarify characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction to whom the administration of each drug provides benefits or do not.
