BACKGROUND: Several studies have examined the potential benefits of continuous vs intermittent (bolus) intravenous loop diuretic administration in hospitalized patients with conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of these 2 strategies in hospitalized adults and children with extracellular fluid volume expansion.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (through October 2012) and prior meta-analyses for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of continuous vs intermittent infusion of loop diuretics. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed to examine several outcomes, including net change in urine output and body weight.
RESULTS: We identified 7 crossover and 11 parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (936 patients) of adults and children. In the 15 studies of adults, continuous loop diuretic infusion resulted in a nonsignificant net increase in daily urine output of 334 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -74 to 742; P = .11) relative to the bolus infusion. In the 8 studies that used a loading dose, continuous loop diuretic infusion resulted in a significant net increase in daily urine output of 294 mL (95% CI, 31-557; P = .03) relative to the intermittent infusion. There was also a significant net decrease in body weight of 0.78 kg (95% CI, -1.54 to -0.03; P = .04) in the continuous relative to the intermittent loop diuretic infusion. In the 3 studies of children, there was no demonstrable effect on daily urine output or body weight.
CONCLUSION: Continuous infusion of loop diuretics preceded by a loading dose results in greater diuresis in hospitalized adults with extracellular fluid volume expansion compared with intermittent dosing regimens. Further studies are required to examine whether these benefits translate into improved clinical outcomes.
PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of continuous infusion vs bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics to treat acute decompensated heart failure were debated. Our aim is to compare the administration routes of diuretics in hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to evaluate the effects of continuous infusion vs bolus administration of loop diuretics in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. The primary end points were urine outputs, body weight loss, all causes of mortality, and death from cardiovascular causes. Secondary end points were electrolyte imbalance, change in creatinine levels, tinnitus or hearing loss, and days of hospitalization. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials with 518 patients were identified. Continuous infusion of diuretics was associated with a significantly greater weight loss (weighted mean difference, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.54) compared with bolus injection. Urine output, the incidence of electrolyte imbalance, change in creatinine level, length of hospitalization, the incidence of ototoxicity, cardiac mortality, and allcause mortality showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of the existing limited studies did not confirm any significant differences in the safety and efficacy with continuous administration of loop diuretic, compared with bolus injection in patients with acute decompensated heart failure
OBJECTIVE: Administering intermittent boluses of furosemide to patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) often leads to unfavorable hemodynamic changes. Continuous infusion may induce similar or greater diuresis without adverse hemodynamic consequences. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared the effects of continuous infusion and intermittent bolus of furosemide in patients hospitalized with ADHF.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from their inception until March 2011. Two investigators independently abstracted data on study characteristics, quality, and selected outcomes. Differences between investigators were resolved by mutual consensus. Comparisons were reported as the weighted mean difference (WMDs).
RESULTS: Ten trials involving a total of 564 patients were included. When administered as a continuous infusion, furosemide resulted in greater diuresis (WMD, -240.54 mL/24 hours/100 mg furosemide; 95% confidence interval [CI], -462.42 to -18.66) and reduction in total body weight (WMD, -0.78 kg; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.03), than when administered in intermittent boluses. Urinary sodium excretion (WMD, -20.26 mmol/24 hours; 95% CI, -60.48 to 19.96) and duration of hospital stay (WMD, 0.99 days; 95% CI, -2.08 to 4.06) were not different between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed statistical support for administering furosemide as a continuous infusion for greater diuresis and reduction in total body weight in patients hospitalized with ADHF. With the exception of greater diuresis, available data are homogenous for the reported outcomes but lack information on clinical endpoints. Larger studies are needed to provide robust recommendations for clinical practice.
Background: Loop diuretics, when given as intermittent bolus injections in acutely decompensated heart failure, may cause fluctuations in intravascular volume, increased toxicity and development of tolerance. Continuous infusion has been proposed to avoid these complications and result in greater diuresis, hopefully leading to faster symptom resolution, decrease in morbidity and possibly, mortality. Objectives: To compare the effects and adverse effects of continuous intravenous infusion of loop diuretics with those of bolus intravenous administration among patients with congestive heart failure Class III-IV. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to 2003), EMBASE (1980 to 2003) and the HERDIN database. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies. Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of continuous intravenous infusion versus bolus intravenous administration of loop diuretics in congestive heart failure were included. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, methodological quality and did data extraction. Included studies were assessed for validity. Authors were contacted when feasible. Adverse effects information was collected from the trials. Main results: Eight trials involving 254 patients were included. In seven studies which reported on urine output, the output (as measured in cc/24 hours) was noted to be greater in patients given continuous infusion with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 271 cc/24 hour (95%CI 93.1 to 449; p<0.01). Electrolyte disturbances (hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia) were not significantly different in the two treatment groups with a relative risk (RR) of 1.47 (95%CI 0.52 to 4.15; p=0.5). Less adverse effects (tinnitus and hearing loss) were noted when continuous infusion was given, RR 0.06 (95%CI 0.01 to 0.44; p=0.005). Based on a single study, the duration of hospital stay was significantly shortened by 3.1days with continuous infusion WMD -3.1 (95%CI -4.06 to -2.20; p<0.0001) while cardiac mortality was significantly different in the two treatment groups, RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.69; p<0.0001). Based on two studies, all cause mortality was significantly different in the two treatment groups, RR 0.52 (95%CI 0.38 to 0.71; p<0.0001). Authors' conclusions: Currently available data are insufficient to confidently assess the merits of the two methods of giving intravenous diuretics. Based on small and relatively heterogenous studies, this review showed greater diuresis and a better safety profile when loop diuretics were given as continuous infusion. The existing data still does not allow definitive recommendations for clinical practice and larger studies should be done to more adequately settle this issue.
Several studies have examined the potential benefits of continuous vs intermittent (bolus) intravenous loop diuretic administration in hospitalized patients with conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of these 2 strategies in hospitalized adults and children with extracellular fluid volume expansion.
METHODS:
We searched MEDLINE (through October 2012) and prior meta-analyses for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of continuous vs intermittent infusion of loop diuretics. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed to examine several outcomes, including net change in urine output and body weight.
RESULTS:
We identified 7 crossover and 11 parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (936 patients) of adults and children. In the 15 studies of adults, continuous loop diuretic infusion resulted in a nonsignificant net increase in daily urine output of 334 mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -74 to 742; P = .11) relative to the bolus infusion. In the 8 studies that used a loading dose, continuous loop diuretic infusion resulted in a significant net increase in daily urine output of 294 mL (95% CI, 31-557; P = .03) relative to the intermittent infusion. There was also a significant net decrease in body weight of 0.78 kg (95% CI, -1.54 to -0.03; P = .04) in the continuous relative to the intermittent loop diuretic infusion. In the 3 studies of children, there was no demonstrable effect on daily urine output or body weight.
CONCLUSION:
Continuous infusion of loop diuretics preceded by a loading dose results in greater diuresis in hospitalized adults with extracellular fluid volume expansion compared with intermittent dosing regimens. Further studies are required to examine whether these benefits translate into improved clinical outcomes.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
