• Haoyu Weng, Yuxi Li, Xiaolu Nie, Chunhui He, Pengbin Feng, Fengxin Zhao, Qingjie Chen, Wen Sun, Jie Jiang, Yan Zhang, Yong Huo, and Jianping Li.
• Department of Cardiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
• Am. J. Med. Sci. 2023 Apr 1; 365 (4): 353360353-360.

BackgroundIt 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsOur 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.Copyright © 2022 Southern Society for Clinical Investigation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…