Short-Term Efficacy and Safety of Torasemide and Furosemide in 366 Dogs with Degenerative Mitral Valve Disease: The TEST Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Furosemide is the only loop diuretic recommended by the ACVIM consensus guidelines for treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) in dogs related to degenerative mitral valve disease (DMVD). Torasemide is another potent loop diuretic with a longer half-life and a higher bioavailability. OBJECTIVES: (1) To demonstrate that torasemide given once a day (q24h) is noninferior to furosemide given twice a day (q12h) for treating dogs with CHF; (2) and to compare the effect of the 2 drugs on the time to reach a composite cardiac endpoint "spontaneous cardiac death, euthanasia due to heart failure or CHF class worsening." ANIMALS: A total of 366 dogs with CHF attributable to DMVD. METHODS: Analysis of 2 prospective randomized single-blinded reference-controlled trials was performed. Dogs orally received either torasemide q24h (n = 180) or furosemide q12h (n = 186) in addition to standard CHF therapy over 3 months. The primary efficacy criterion was the percentage of dogs with treatment success assessed in each study. The time to reach the composite cardiac endpoint was used as secondary criterion in the overall population. RESULTS: = +1%; 95% CI [-12%; +14%], respectively, in Study 1 and Study 2). Torasemide (median dose = 0.24 mg/kg/d q24h; range = 0.10-0.69 mg/kg/d) was associated with a 2-fold reduction in the risk of reaching the composite cardiac endpoint (adjusted HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.27-0.82; P = 0.0077) as compared with furosemide (median dose = 1.39 mg/kg q12h; range = 0.70-6.30 mg/kg q12h). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Torasemide q24h is an effective oral diuretic in dogs with CHF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".