Key result
Continuous infusion shows no clear benefit over bolus furosemide in acute heart failure.
Why the study?
The ideal method of intravenous furosemide administration in acute heart failure remains contested, with uncertainty about renal protection and diuresis efficacy between continuous infusion and intermittent bolus dosing.
Does continuous infusion of furosemide improve serum creatinine and BUN levels compared to intermittent bolus dosing in acute heart failure patients?
RCT (n=60)
Does continuous infusion of furosemide improve serum creatinine and BUN levels compared to intermittent bolus dosing in acute heart failure patients?
No practice change from this Level 5 trial; leaves open optimal furosemide dosing for renal preservation in ADHF.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hassan et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Acute heart failure (n=60). Continuous infusion of furosemide vs. Intermittent bolus dosing of furosemide was evaluated on Mean serum creatinine, BUN, mean urine output, eGFR, and BNP. Continuous infusion of furosemide was compared to intermittent bolus dosing in acute heart failure patients, but results are not reported in the truncated abstract.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: