Key result
Bolus IV furosemide shortens hospital stay by ~3 days compared to continuous infusion.
Why the study?
Few prospective clinical trials have thoroughly explored the effectiveness and safety of diverse intravenous furosemide regimens in acute decompensated heart failure patients.
Does an intravenous furosemide bolus reduce hospitalization length and improve clinical outcomes compared to continuous infusion or furosemide plus hypertonic saline in patients with acute decompensated heart failure?
RCT (n=1,276)
Open-label
Computer algorithm
No
Does an intravenous furosemide bolus reduce hospitalization length and improve clinical outcomes compared to continuous infusion or furosemide plus hypertonic saline in patients with acute decompensated heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.7% vs 6.6%
p-value: p=< 0.01
Intravenous bolus furosemide may significantly reduce the length of hospital stay compared to continuous infusion in patients with acute decompensated heart failure, without adversely affecting renal function.
Bolus furosemide shortens stay in acute decompensated HF; supports preferential use over continuous infusion and warrants confirmatory trials.
BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different intravenous diuretic regimens in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients. METHODS: ADHF patients were enrolled and randomized into three groups: continuous intravenous furosemide infusion (cIV), bolus furosemide injection (bI), and furosemide plus hypertonic saline solution (HSS). Clinical outcomes were assessed over 48 h. RESULTS: In a study involving 1276 patients admitted for ADHF, three therapeutic regimens (T × 1, T × 2, and T × 3) were compared. T × 1 administered an 80 mg furosemide intravenous bolus infusion twice daily to 479 patients, while T × 2 involved a continuous 16-h infusion of 160 mg furosemide daily to 420 patients. T × 3 treated 377 patients with 160 mg furosemide combined with 150 mL of HSS containing 1.95% NaCl over 30 min. Yet, overall changes in renal markers such as BUN, Na, K, and serum creatinine did not differ significantly. Analysis of prespecified study endpoints revealed notable variations in hospitalization length among the treatment arms. T × 1 demonstrated a significantly shorter hospital stay (3.7 days) compared to T × 2 (6.6 days) and T × 3 (7.9 days). Conversely, alterations in serum creatinine at 48 h, overall changes in serum creatinine, body weight loss, and serum potassium levels did not significantly differ among the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: While intravenous bolus of furosemide showed potential benefits in reducing hospitalization duration, limitations such as a small sample size and short-term observation emphasize the need for larger studies to validate these outcomes further.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Acute decompensated heart failure with atrial fibrillation (n=1,276). Bolus furosemide injection vs. Continuous furosemide infusion (160 mg over 16 h daily) or furosemide plus hypertonic saline solution was evaluated on Length of hospitalization (days) (p=< 0.01). Bolus intravenous furosemide injection significantly reduced the length of hospital stay to an average of 3.7 days compared to 6.6 days for continuous infusion and 7.9 days for furosemide with hypertonic saline.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: