Çağrı Yayla1,2, Ahmet Akyel3, Uğur Canpolat4, Kadriye Gayretli Yayla3, Azmi Eyiol5, Mehmet Kadri Akboğa4, Sedat Türkoğlu5, Yusuf Tavil5, Bülent Boyacı5, Atiye Çengel5. 1. Department of Cardiology, Türkiye Yüksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. cagriyayla@gmail.com. 2. Türkiye Yüksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital, Cardiology Clinic, 06100, Sihhiye/Ankara, Turkey. cagriyayla@gmail.com. 3. Department of Cardiology, Dişkapi Yildirim Beyazit Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 4. Department of Cardiology, Türkiye Yüksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 5. Department of Cardiology, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few prospective data available for establishing a standard diuretic administration regimen for patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of three regimens of furosemide administration in patients with ADHF with regard to diuresis, renal functions, and in-hospital outcomes. METHODS: A total of 43 patients who presented with ADHF were randomized into three groups: (a) continuous infusion (cIV) of 160 mg furosemide for 16 h/day (n = 15); (b) bolus injections (bI) of 80 mg furosemide twice a day (n = 14); (c) and administration of 160 mg furosemide plus hypertonic saline solution (HSS) as an infusion for 30 min once a day (n = 14). All regimens were continued for 48 h. Study endpoints were negative fluid balance assessed by loss of body weight, change in the serum creatinine (baseline to 48 h and baseline to compensated state), and length of hospitalization. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean change in serum creatinine level at the end of 48 h between groups (p = 0.08). There was also no significant difference among groups regarding loss of body weight (p = 0.66). A significantly shorter hospitalization was observed in patients treated with HSS compared with the other groups (cIV group 6.6 ± 3.4 days vs. bI group 7.9 ± 4.1 days vs. HSS group 3.7 ± 1.3 days; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: All three furosemide regimens have similar renal safety and efficacy measures. However, administration of furosemide plus HSS may be the preferred diuretic strategy because of its shorter hospital stay.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There are few prospective data available for establishing a standard diuretic administration regimen for patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of three regimens of furosemide administration in patients with ADHF with regard to diuresis, renal functions, and in-hospital outcomes. METHODS: A total of 43 patients who presented with ADHF were randomized into three groups: (a) continuous infusion (cIV) of 160 mg furosemide for 16 h/day (n = 15); (b) bolus injections (bI) of 80 mg furosemide twice a day (n = 14); (c) and administration of 160 mg furosemide plus hypertonic saline solution (HSS) as an infusion for 30 min once a day (n = 14). All regimens were continued for 48 h. Study endpoints were negative fluid balance assessed by loss of body weight, change in the serum creatinine (baseline to 48 h and baseline to compensated state), and length of hospitalization. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean change in serum creatinine level at the end of 48 h between groups (p = 0.08). There was also no significant difference among groups regarding loss of body weight (p = 0.66). A significantly shorter hospitalization was observed in patients treated with HSS compared with the other groups (cIV group 6.6 ± 3.4 days vs. bI group 7.9 ± 4.1 days vs. HSS group 3.7 ± 1.3 days; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: All three furosemide regimens have similar renal safety and efficacy measures. However, administration of furosemide plus HSS may be the preferred diuretic strategy because of its shorter hospital stay.
Authors: S Paterna; P Di Pasquale; G Parrinello; P Amato; A Cardinale; G Follone; A Giubilato; G Licata Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Daniel E Forman; Javed Butler; Yongfei Wang; William T Abraham; Christopher M O'Connor; Stephen S Gottlieb; Evan Loh; Barry M Massie; Michael W Rich; Lynne Warner Stevenson; James B Young; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-01-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Salvatore Paterna; Pietro Di Pasquale; Gaspare Parrinello; Ersilia Fornaciari; Francesca Di Gaudio; Sergio Fasullo; Marco Giammanco; Filippo M Sarullo; Giuseppe Licata Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-06-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: G Michael Felker; Kerry L Lee; David A Bull; Margaret M Redfield; Lynne W Stevenson; Steven R Goldsmith; Martin M LeWinter; Anita Deswal; Jean L Rouleau; Elizabeth O Ofili; Kevin J Anstrom; Adrian F Hernandez; Steven E McNulty; Eric J Velazquez; Abdallah G Kfoury; Horng H Chen; Michael M Givertz; Marc J Semigran; Bradley A Bart; Alice M Mascette; Eugene Braunwald; Christopher M O'Connor Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mehmet Birhan Yilmaz; Etienne Gayat; Reda Salem; Johan Lassus; Maria Nikolaou; Said Laribi; John Parissis; Ferenc Follath; W Franck Peacock; Alexandre Mebazaa Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Matthew Griffin; Aaron Soufer; Erden Goljo; Matthew Colna; Veena S Rao; Sangchoon Jeon; Parinita Raghavendra; Julie D'Ambrosi; Ralph Riello; Steven G Coca; Devin Mahoney; Daniel Jacoby; Tariq Ahmad; Michael Chen; W H Wilson Tang; Jeffrey Turner; Wilfried Mullens; Francis P Wilson; Jeffrey M Testani Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Tiziana Bove; Alessandro Belletti; Alessandro Putzu; Simone Pappacena; Giuseppe Denaro; Giovanni Landoni; Sean M Bagshaw; Alberto Zangrillo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 3.240