Direct vasoactivity of frusemide

Randomized placebo controlled trial of furosemide on subjective perception of dyspnoea in patients with pulmonary oedema because of hypertensive crisis

BACKGROUND

To compare the administration of furosemide with placebo on the subjective perception of dyspnoea in patients with acute pulmonary oedema because of hypertensive crisis. Design  Randomized, controlled and double-blinded clinical trial.

SETTING

Municipal emergency medical service system and university-based emergency department.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-nine patients with pulmonary oedema because of hypertensive crisis.

INTERVENTIONS

Additional to administration of oxygen, morphine-hydrochloride and urapidil until the systolic blood pressure was below 160mmHg, the patients were randomized to receive furosemide 80mg IV bolus (furosemide group) or saline placebo (placebo group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the subjective perception of dyspnoea as measured with a modified BORG scale at one hour after randomization. Secondary outcome parameters were the subjective perception of dyspnoea of patients as measured with a modified BORG scale and a visual analogue scale at 2, 3 and 6h after randomization of the patient; course of the systolic arterial pressure and peripheral oxygen saturation and lactate at admission and at 6h after admission.

RESULTS

In 25 patients in the furosemide group and in 28 patients in the placebo group, a BORG score could be obtained. There was no statistically significant difference in the severity of dyspnoea at one hour after randomization (P=0·40). The median BORG score at 1h after randomization in the furosemide group was 3 (IQR 2 to 4) compared to 3 (IQR 2 to 7) in the placebo group (P=0·40). Those patients who were randomized to the placebo group needed higher doses of urapidil at 20min after randomization. There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events, nonfatal cardiac arrests or death between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The subjective perception of dyspnoea in patients with hypertensive pulmonary oedema was not influenced by the application of a loop-diuretic. Therefore, additional furosemide therapy needs to be scrutinized in the therapy of these patients.

Modern Management of Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema

Cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) is a life-threatening condition that is frequently encountered in standard emergency medicine practice. Traditionally, diagnosis was based on physical assessment and chest radiography and treatment focused on the use of morphine sulfate and diuretics. Numerous advances in diagnosis and treatment have been made, however. Serum testing for B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) has improved the accuracy of diagnoses in these patients. Treatment should focus on fluid redistribution with aggressive preload and afterload reduction rather than simply on diuresis. Some specific medications and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation have been shown to be safe and rapidly effective in improving patients' symptoms and improve outcomes.

Acute heart failure: a practical guide to management

Acute heart failure is a common cause of referral and admission to hospital. It requires prompt recognition and treatment. This article will address the practical issues regarding diagnosis, investigation, treatment and prevention of recurrence.

Randomised trial of high-dose isosorbide dinitrate plus low-dose furosemide versus high-dose furosemide plus low-dose isosorbide dinitrate in severe pulmonary oedema

BACKGROUND

Nitrates and furosemide, commonly administered in the treatment of pulmonary oedema, have not been compared in a prospective clinical trial. We compared the efficacy and safety of these drugs in a randomised trial of patients with severe pulmonary oedema and oxygen saturation below 90%.

METHODS

Patients presenting to mobile emergency units with signs of congestive heart failure were treated with oxygen 10 L/min, intravenous furosemide 40 mg, and morphine 3 mg bolus. 110 patients were randomly assigned either to group A, who received isosorbide dinitrate (3 mg bolus administered intravenously every 5 min; n=56) or to group B, who received furosemide (80 mg bolus administered intravenously every 15 min, as well as isosorbide dinitrate 1 mg/h, increased every 10 min by 1 mg/h; n=54). Six patients were withdrawn on the basis of chest radiography results. Treatment was continued until oxygen saturation was above 96% or mean arterial blood pressure had decreased by 30% or to below 90 mm Hg. The main endpoints were death, need for mechanical ventilation, and myocardial infarction. The analyses were by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Mechanical ventilation was required in seven (13%) of 52 group-A patients and 21 (40%) of 52 group-B patients (p=0.0041). Myocardial infarction occurred in nine (17%) and 19 (37%) patients, respectively (p=0.047). One patient in group A and three in group B died (p=0.61). One or more of these endpoints occurred in 13 (25%) and 24 (46%) patients, respectively (p=0.041).

INTERPRETATION

High-dose isosorbide dinitrate, given as repeated intravenous boluses after low-dose intravenous furosemide, is safe and effective in controlling severe pulmonary oedema. This treatment regimen is more effective than high-dose furosemide with low-dose isosorbide nitrate in terms of need for mechanical ventilation and frequency of myocardial infarction.

Increased toxicity of high-dose furosemide versus low-dose dopamine in the treatment of refractory congestive heart failure

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of low-dose dopamine, high-dose furosemide, and their combination in the treatment of refractory congestive heart failure.

METHODS

Twenty consecutive patients with refractory congestive heart failure were randomized to receive intravenous low-dose (4 micrograms/kg/min) dopamine combined with low-dose (80 mg/day) oral furosemide (group A; n = 7), intravenous low-dose dopamine with medium-dose furosemide (5 mg/kg/day through continuous intravenous administration; group B; n = 7), or high-dose furosemide (10 mg/kg/day through continuous intravenous administration; group C; n = 6).

RESULTS

The three groups showed similar improvement in signs and symptoms of congestive heart failure, urinary output (2506 +/- 671 ml/24 hr, mean +/- SD) and weight loss (3.3 +/- 2.3 kg) after 72 hours of therapy. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) decreased by 14% +/- 8% and 15% +/- 6% in groups B and C, respectively, but increased by 4% +/- 15% in group A (p = 0.017). Renal function deteriorated significantly in groups B and C: creatinine clearance decreased by 41% +/- 23% and 42% +/- 23%, respectively, but increased by 14% +/- 35% in group A (p = 0.0074). MAP decrease was positively correlated with the decrease in creatinine clearance (r = 0.7; p = 0.0007). Patients in group B and C had more hypokalemia than group A. Two patients in group C sustained acute oliguric renal failure and one patient in group B died suddenly while sustaining severe hypokalemia.

CONCLUSION

Combined low-dose intravenous dopamine and oral furosemide have similar efficacy but induce less renal impairment and hypokalemia than higher doses of intravenous furosemide taken either alone or with low-dose dopamine. The renal impairment induced by intravenous furosemide is probably related to its hypotensive effect in patients with refractory congestive heart failure.