In this randomized trial of hospitalized CHF patients, they were randomized to IV bolus or continuous infusion of furosemide, at either low dose (equivalent to home dose) or high dose (equivalent to 2.5 times the home dose). At 72 hours, there was no significant difference in patient symptoms or serum creatinine between the dosing groups or the schedule groups. The high dose strategy was favorable in diuresis and some secondary outcomes, but at the expense of a transient increase in serum creatinine (abstract). There is no apparent advantage to continuous IV furosemide versus bolus dosing; there may be some advantage to higher diuretic doses (2.5 times equivalent home dose).
Share This Post
Categories
Related Posts
While all of us see patients who smoke in their 70s or 80s, due to their limited lifespan from COPD, DM, malignancy, etc., and their expressed wishes to continue tobacco, we keep our admonitions to a minimum. We accept our patient has become learned enough through life to make their own decisions and accept whatever […]
Do you have a stack of journals piling up on your desk, beside your bed or in your email inbox? In 1950, medical knowledge was estimated to double every 50 years, but now the doubling time is every few months. At this rate, it is impossible to keep up with the literature, but a group […]
Fill in the Blanks: Q: “The diagnosis of type 2 MI is associated with a _____ prognosis. ___% of patients will live five years after their diagnosis.” The answer is a) POOR and b) a staggering 40%. I did not know that. However, what I am aware of is the ambiguity around Type 2 MIs and […]
Leave A Comment