A prospective, randomized study to evaluate the efficacy of various diuretic strategies in acute decompensated heart failure

Continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for acute heart failure

BACKGROUND

Acute heart failure (AHF) is new onset of, or a sudden worsening of, chronic heart failure characterised by congestion in about 95% of cases or end-organ hypoperfusion in 5% of cases. Treatment often requires urgent escalation of diuretic therapy, mainly through hospitalisation. This Cochrane review evaluated the efficacy of intravenous loop diuretics strategies in treating AHF in individuals with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification III or IV and fluid overload.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intravenous continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for the initial treatment of acute heart failure in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through systematic searches of bibliographic databases and in clinical trials registers including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CPCI-S on the Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), and the European Union Trials register. We conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was performed on 29 February 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with AHF, NYHA classification III or IV, regardless of aetiology or ejection fraction, where trials compared intravenous continuous infusion of loop diuretics with intermittent bolus injection in AHF. We excluded trials with chronic stable heart failure, cardiogenic shock, renal artery stenosis, or end-stage renal disease. Additionally, we excluded studies combining loop diuretics with hypertonic saline, inotropes, vasoactive medications, or renal replacement therapy and trials where diuretic dosing was protocol-driven to achieve a target urine output, due to confounding factors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened papers for inclusion and reviewed full-texts. Outcomes included weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission following discharge, and occurrence of acute kidney injury. We performed risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis where data permitted and assessed certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven RCTs, spanning 32 hospitals in seven countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Data collection ranged from eight months to six years. Following exclusion of participants in subgroups with confounding treatments and different clinical settings, 681 participants were eligible for review. These additional study characteristics, coupled with our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, improve the applicability of the body of the evidence as they reflect real-world clinical practice. Meta-analysis was feasible for net weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission, and acute kidney injury. Literature review and narrative analysis explored daily fluid balance; cardiovascular mortality; B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) change; N-terminal-proBNP change; and adverse incidents such as ototoxicity, hypotension, and electrolyte imbalances. Risk of bias assessment revealed two studies with low overall risk, four with some concerns, and one with high risk. All sensitivity analyses excluded trials at high risk of bias. Only narrative analysis was conducted for 'daily fluid balance' due to diverse data presentation methods across two studies (169 participants, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect). Results of narrative analysis varied. For instance, one study reported higher daily fluid balance within the first 24 hours in the continuous infusion group compared to the bolus injection group, whereas there was no difference in fluid balance beyond this time point. Continuous intravenous infusion of loop diuretics may result in mean net weight loss of 0.86 kg more than bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.86 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.28; 5 trials, 497 participants; P < 0.001, I2 = 21%; very low-certainty evidence). Importantly, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high risk of bias showed there was insufficient evidence for a difference in bodyweight loss between groups (MD 0.70 kg, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.46; 3 trials, 378 participants; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality between continuous infusion and bolus injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.90; 5 trials, 530 participants; P = 0.19, I2 = 4%; low-certainty evidence). Despite sensitivity analysis, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. No trials measured cardiovascular mortality. There may be little to no difference in the length of hospital stay between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -4.84 to 2.64; 4 trials, 211 participants; P = 0.57, I2 = 88%; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis improved heterogeneity; however, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. There may be little to no difference in the readmission to hospital between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 3 trials, 400 participants; P = 0.31, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show insufficient evidence for a difference in the readmission to hospital between groups. There may be little to no difference in the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse event between continuous infusion and bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.49; 3 trials, 491 participants; P = 0.92, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show that continuous infusion may make little to no difference on the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse events compared to the bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of available data comparing two delivery methods of diuretics in acute heart failure found that the current data are insufficient to show superiority of one strategy intervention over the other. Our findings were based on trials meeting stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure validity. Despite previous reviews suggesting advantages of continuous infusion over bolus injections, our review found insufficient evidence to support or refute this. However, our review, which excluded trials with clinical confounders and RCTs with high risk of bias, offers the most robust conclusion to date.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of bolus vs. continuous infusion of loop diuretics: Results from the MIMIC-III Database

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether fluid management goals are best achieved by bolus injection or continuous infusion of loop diuretics. In this study, we compared the effectiveness and safety of a continuous infusion with that of a bolus injection when an increased loop diuretic dosage is required in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

We obtained data from the MIMIC-III database for patients who were first-time ICU admissions and required an increased diuretic dosage. Patients were excluded if they had an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 ml/min/1.73 m², were receiving renal replacement therapy, had a baseline systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg, or required a furosemide dose <120 mg. The patients were divided into a continuous group and a bolus group. Propensity score matching was used to balance patients' background characteristics.

RESULTS

The final dataset included 807 patients (continuous group, n = 409; bolus group, n = 398). After propensity score matching, there were 253 patients in the bolus group and 231 in the continuous group. The 24 h urine output per 40 mg of furosemide was significantly greater in the continuous group than in the bolus group (234.66 ml [95% confidence interval (CI) 152.13-317.18, p < 0.01]). There was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of acute kidney injury (odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.66-1.41, p = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that a continuous infusion of loop diuretics may be more effective than a bolus injection and does not increase the risk of acute kidney injury in patients who need an increased diuretic dosage in the ICU.

Continuous Infusion Versus Bolus Injection of Loop Diuretics for Patients With Congestive Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Loop diuretics continue to be a crucial component of pharmacological treatment, to eliminate extra fluid and enhance symptom control in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Understanding the loop diuretics' more efficient form of administration would be very beneficial in improving the management of people's ADHF, resulting in a quicker resolution of symptoms and a notable decrease in morbidity. To assess the outcomes of intravenous continuous infusion with bolus injection of loop diuretics for patients with ADHF, this meta-analysis was carried out. The current meta-analysis was conducted as per the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was carried out on PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies comparing continuous infusion with intermittent bolus injection of furosemide in patients with congestive heart failure without restriction on the language of publication from 1 January 2001 to 31 July 2022. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was all-cause mortality and loss of body weight (kg). Pre-defined secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS) in days, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) reduction (pg/ml), number of patients with hypokalemia, and urine output at 24 hours (ml). A total of nine articles were included in this meta-analysis enrolling 713 patients. No significant difference was reported between patients who received intermittent bolus injections and continuous infusion of furosemide in regards to all-cause mortality, LOS, total urine output, the incidence of hypokalemia, and change in BNP. However, the reduction of body weight was greater in the continuous infusion group compared to bolus administration. In conclusion, in the current meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs), continuous infusion of furosemide seemed to have a greater reduction of body weight. However, no significant difference was there in 24-hrs urine output. However, we cannot conclude that intravenous continuous infusion has a better diuretic effect compared to bolus administration.

Comparison of Different Furosemide Regimens in the Treatment of Acute Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Background. To compare the effects of different dosing schemes of furosemide on acute heart failure (AHF). Methods. Literature that compared the efficacy of continuous and intermittent administration of furosemide in AHF patients was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science from inception to May 2022. The primary endpoints included overall weight loss, 24-hour urine volume, length of hospital stay, 24-hour brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level change, and all-cause mortality. The RevmMan5.4 software was used to analyze the extracted data. Results. A total of 10 studies with 775 patients, including 338 receiving continuous furosemide administration and 387 receiving intermittent furosemide administration, were included. The analysis results showed significant differences in weight loss ( $\text{MD}=1.08$ , 95% CI (0.75~1.40), $P<0.00001$ ) and 24-hour urine volume (MD =335.23, 95% CI (140.98~529.47), $P=0.0007$ ) between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in terms of length of hospital stay ( $\text{MD}=-0.71$ , 95% CI (-2.74~1.31), $P=0.49$ ) and all-cause mortality ( $\text{RR}=1.59$ , 95% CI (0.92~2.75), $P=0.10$ ). Conclusions. Compared with intermittent administration, continuous infusion of furosemide had a significant effect on the 24-hour urine volume and total weight loss in patients with AHF.

Impact of Outpatient Diuretic Infusion Therapy on Healthcare Cost and Readmissions

Background and Objectives

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome with multiple etiologies resulting in impaired ventricular filling or pumping of blood. HF is as a major public health concern that leads to significant morbidity and mortality resulting in an enormous financial burden on the healthcare system. The study objectives were to assess the 30-day hospital readmission rates and its financial impact on the hospital.

Methods

The study was a retrospective single-center analysis of decoded data of all HF patients admitted to an outpatient diuretic infusion program. Adult patients who were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days despite guideline derive medical therapy were included if they were enrolled in the outpatient diuretic infusion clinic. Adult patients who were included in this study received a furosemide dose of 40 mg intravenously (infusion over 3 hours) at the clinic visit. Patients whose clinical signs/symptoms improved and remained stable in consequent visits were eventually discharged from the clinic. Financial impact was assessed using data obtained from the hospital administration on cost of HF readmissions.

Results

The results show a 30-day hospital readmission rate at 6–9% in the years analyzed (n=56) with a net savings of $562,815 to $736,560 per year.

Conclusions

This treatment strategy has no detrimental effects in addition to generating substantial financial savings. It appears to be a useful addition to the existing medical treatment regimens chronic HF patients.

Treatment outcomes of bumetanide continuous infusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The clinical use of continuous bumetanide infusion for acute heart failure and volume overload is common. However, there is not enough supporting evidence for the use of continuous bumetanide infusion. Thus, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to describe the treatment outcomes of continuous bumetanide infusion. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for eligible publications. Inclusion criteria were patients age ≥18 years with bumetanide infusion for heart failure, acute kidney injury (AKI) or volume overload. From 1564 citations, three studies (n = 94 patients) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean dose of bumetanide was 1.08 ± 0.43 mg/hour with a mean treatment duration of 45.09 ± 10.12 hours. Mean urine output in response to continuous bumetanide infusion was 1.88 mL/kg/hour (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-2.05). The incidence of AKI with continuous bumetanide infusion was 24.7% (95% CI, 8.2-54.6). By using Pearson's correlation coefficient, increasing doses of bumetanide were correlated with increased urine output (P = .026) and increased incidence of AKI (P < .01). There was no correlation between increasing urine output and the incidence of AKI (P = .739). In conclusion, with available evidence, continuous bumetanide infusion may be used in the treatment of acute heart failure or volume overload with close monitoring for new-onset or worsening AKI.

Effect of diuretic infusion clinic in preventing hospitalization for patients with decompensating heart failure

Introduction:

It is proposed that access to administering intravenous furosemide outside the hospital can contribute to lowering hospital admissions for heart failure. This study aims to evaluate the effect of outpatient furosemide infusion protocol in preventing hospitalization for patients with decompensating heart failure. This constitutes designing a viable clinical pathway in hospitals using a multidisciplinary heart failure program.

Methods:

A prospective interventional study testing the effect of diuretic infusion clinic in preventing hospitalization for patients with decompensating heart failure was conducted on 150 decompensating heart failure patients requiring hospital admission. Only 105 patients met the criteria and subsequently enrolled in the study. Each patient was administered intravenous furosemide infusion one or more times according to the protocol and depending on their symptoms of decompensation. Patients were referred for admission at any point once there is no improvement of their medical condition, or referred to heart failure clinic when clinical picture improved as observed by the treating team.

Results:

In total, 14 of 105 patients who received intravenous furosemide infusion did not respond to diuretic infusion protocol and required hospital admission while 91 patients responded to same protocol and did not require admission, P value was statistically significant in three laboratory test measures of potassium (<0.001), urea (0.004), and creatinine (0.008). Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was observed in 70 (76.9%) responders with a mean ejection fraction of 23% and in 9 (64.3%) non-responders with mean ejection fraction of 19.9%.

Conclusion:

Outpatient intravenous furosemide infusion protocol is effective in preventing hospitalization for decompensating heart failure and a viable clinical pathway for heart failure programs.

Continuous versus intermittent administration of furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diuretic therapy is important in critically ill patients because fluid overload impairs organ function and increases mortality. Compared to intermittent administration, continuous infusion of loop diuretics is theoretically superior in terms of diuresis and electrolyte balance. However, the available evidence is susceptible to carryover diuretic effects and resistance in earlier crossover trials. Consequently, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel-group randomized controlled trials to compare these two strategies in adults with acute decompensated heart failure. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inceptions to May 26, 2018. We pooled the data using a random effects model. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, and body weight reduction. We analyzed 12 parallel-group randomized controlled trials involving 923 patients. Compared with intermittent administration, continuous infusion of furosemide was not associated with an improvement in all-cause mortality (risk ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 2.16), length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 0.88 days; 95% CI, - 2.76 to 1.01), or 24-h urine output (WMD 489.17 mL; 95% CI, - 183.18 to 1161.51), but was significantly associated with a greater body weight reduction (WMD 0.63 kg; 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.02). No differences in hypokalemia, hyponatremia, increased serum creatinine level, and hypotension were noted. Continuous infusion of furosemide, compared to intermittent administration, is associated with a greater body weight reduction and potential increase in 24-h urine output. The limited available evidence suggests no difference in adverse events between both strategies. Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42017083878).

Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses of Furosemide in Acute Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute heart failure is a common cause of hospital admission. This study aims to compare continuous infusion and intermittent boluses of furosemide in treating acute heart failure.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed on PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE. English articles comparing intermittent boluses and continuous infusion of furosemide in treating acute heart failure were included. Non-comparative studies or articles, and articles that did not report specific data for acute heart failure patients were excluded. Primary endpoints included post-treatment daily urine output, weight, length of stay, and serum sodium, potassium, and creatinine. Secondary endpoints included other pre-treatment and treatment variables. Post hoc trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed on selected variables.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 735 patients (371 with intermittent boluses and 364 with continuous infusion). Mean daily urine output (P < .001) and weight loss (P = .04) were significantly higher in the continuous infusion group. Other variables were not significantly different between the two groups. TSA showed that current evidence is sufficient to draw the above conclusions about mean daily urine output, but more studies were required to compare the 2 regimens in terms of weight loss.

CONCLUSION

Choice of furosemide regime in acute heart failure remains physician preference. Both bolus and continuous infusion yields satisfactory outcomes.

Dopamine in critically ill patients with cardiac dysfunction: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

Dopamine has been used in patients with cardiac dysfunction for more than five decades. Yet, no systematic review has assessed the effects of dopamine in critically ill patients with cardiac dysfunction.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted following The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We searched for trials including patients with observed cardiac dysfunction published until 19 April 2018. Risk of bias was evaluated and Trial Sequential Analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality at longest follow‐up. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, and renal replacement therapy. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Results

We identified 17 trials randomising 1218 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias and only one trial used placebo. Dopamine compared with any control treatment was not significantly associated with relative risk of mortality (60/457 [13%] vs 90/581 [15%]; RR 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.68‐1.21) or any other patient‐centred outcomes. Trial Sequential Analyses of all outcomes showed that there was insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated intervention effects. There were also no statistically significant associations for any of the outcomes in subgroup analyses by type of comparator (inactive compared to potentially active), dopamine dose (low compared to moderate dose), or setting (cardiac surgery compared to heart failure).

Conclusion

Evidence for dopamine in critically ill patients with cardiac dysfunction is sparse, of low quality, and inconclusive. The use of dopamine for cardiac dysfunction can neither be recommended nor refuted.

The Japanese clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury 2016

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a syndrome which has a broad range of etiologic factors depending on different clinical settings. Because AKI has significant impacts on prognosis in any clinical settings, early detection and intervention is necessary to improve the outcomes of AKI patients. This clinical guideline for AKI was developed by a multidisciplinary approach with nephrology, intensive care medicine, blood purification, and pediatrics. Of note, clinical practice for AKI management which was widely performed in Japan was also evaluated with comprehensive literature search.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guideline for acute kidney injury 2016

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a syndrome which has a broad range of etiologic factors depending on different clinical settings. Because AKI has significant impacts on prognosis in any clinical settings, early detection and intervention are necessary to improve the outcomes of AKI patients. This clinical guideline for AKI was developed by a multidisciplinary approach with nephrology, intensive care medicine, blood purification, and pediatrics. Of note, clinical practice for AKI management which was widely performed in Japan was also evaluated with comprehensive literature search.

Intermittent furosemide administration in patients with or at risk for acute kidney injury: Meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Furosemide is the most common loop diuretic used worldwide. The off-label administration of furosemide bolus(es) for the prevention or to reverse acute kidney injury (AKI) is widespread but not supported by available evidence. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCTs) to investigate whether bolus furosemide to prevent or treat AKI is detrimental on patients’ survival.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched through October 2017 for RCTs comparing bolus furosemide administration versus any comparator in patients with or at risk for AKI. The primary endpoint was all-cause longest follow-up mortality. Secondary endpoints included new or worsening AKI, receipt of renal replacement therapy, length of hospital stay, and peak serum creatinine after randomization.

Results

A total of 28 studies randomizing 3,228 patients were included in the analysis. We found no difference in mortality between the two groups (143/892 [16%] in the furosemide group versus 141/881 [16%] in the control group; odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.13; p = 0.25). No significant differences in secondary outcomes were found. A significant improvement in survival was found in the subgroup of patients receiving furosemide bolus(es) as a preventive measure (43/613 [7.0%] versus 67/619 [10.8%], OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.94; p = 0.03)

Conclusions

Intermittent furosemide administration is not associated with an increased mortality in patients with or at risk for AKI, although it may reduce mortality when used as a preventive measure. Future high-quality RCTs are needed to define the role of loop diuretics in AKI prevention and management.

Trial registration

The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO database for systematic reviews (Registration no. CRD42017078607 – http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017078607).

Continuous Infusion versus Intermittent Bolus Injection of Furosemide in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Fluid overload is a common phenomenon seen in intensive care units (ICUs). However, there is no general consensus on whether continuous or bolus furosemide is safer or more effective in these hemodynamically unstable ICU patients. The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine the clinical outcomes of continuous versus bolus furosemide in a critically ill population in ICUs.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews were searched from their inception until June 2017.

REVIEW METHODS

All randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case-control studies were included. Case reports, case series, nonsystematic reviews, and studies that involved children were excluded.

RESULTS

Nine studies (n = 464) were eligible in the data synthesis. Both continuous and bolus furosemide resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality (7 studies; n = 396; I² = 0%; fixed-effect model [FEM]: odds ratio [OR] 1.15 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.96]; p = 0.64). Continuous furosemide was associated with significant greater total urine output (n = 132; I² = 70%; random-effect model: OR 811.19 [95% CI 99.84-1,522.53]; p = 0.03), but longer length of hospital stay (n = 290; I² = 40%; FEM: OR 2.84 [95% CI 1.74-3.94]; p < 0.01) in comparison to the bolus group. No statistical significance was found in the changes of creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, continuous furosemide was associated with greater diuretic effect in total urine output as compared with bolus. Neither had any differences in mortality and changes of renal function tests. However, a large adequately powered randomized clinical trial is required to fill this knowledge gap.