-
Anaesthesia Mar 2010Furosemide, a potent loop diuretic, is frequently used in different stages of acute kidney injury, but its clinical roles remain uncertain. This review summarises the... (Review)
Review
Furosemide, a potent loop diuretic, is frequently used in different stages of acute kidney injury, but its clinical roles remain uncertain. This review summarises the pharmacology of furosemide, its potential uses and side effects, and the evidence of its efficacy. Furosemide is actively secreted by the proximal tubules into the urine before reaching its site of action at the ascending limb of loop of Henle. It is the urinary concentrations of furosemide that determine its diuretic effect. The severity of acute kidney injury has a significant effect on the diuretic response to furosemide; a good 'urinary response' may be considered as a 'proxy' for having some residual renal function. The current evidence does not suggest that furosemide can reduce mortality in patients with acute kidney injury. In patients with acute lung injury without haemodynamic instability, furosemide may be useful in achieving fluid balance to facilitate mechanical ventilation according to the lung-protective ventilation strategy.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Diuretics; Evidence-Based Medicine; Furosemide; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 20085566
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06228.x -
PloS One 2021It has been a matter of much debate whether the co-administration of furosemide and albumin can achieve better diuresis and natriuresis than furosemide treatment alone.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It has been a matter of much debate whether the co-administration of furosemide and albumin can achieve better diuresis and natriuresis than furosemide treatment alone. There is inconsistency in published trials regarding the effect of this combination therapy. We, therefore, conducted this meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of furosemide and albumin co-administration and the factors potentially influencing the diuretic effect of such co-administration.
METHODS
In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. Prospective studies with adult populations which comparing the effect of furosemide and albumin co-administration with furosemide alone were included. The outcomes including diuretic effect and natriuresis effect measured by hourly urine output and hourly urine sodium excretion from both groups were extracted. Random effect model was applied for conducting meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity of treatment effects.
RESULTS
By including 13 studies with 422 participants, the meta-analysis revealed that furosemide with albumin co-administration increased urine output by 31.45 ml/hour and increased urine excretion by 1.76 mEq/hour in comparison to furosemide treatment alone. The diuretic effect of albumin and furosemide co-administration was better in participants with low baseline serum albumin levels (< 2.5 g/dL) and high prescribed albumin infusion doses (> 30 g), and the effect was more significant within 12 hours after administration. Diuretic effect of co-administration was better in those with baseline Cr > 1.2 mg/dL and natriuresis effect of co-administration was better in those with baseline eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2.
CONCLUSION
Co-administration of furosemide with albumin might enhance diuresis and natriuresis effects than furosemide treatment alone but with high heterogeneity in treatment response. According to the present meta-analysis, combination therapy might provide advantages compared to the furosemide therapy alone in patients with baseline albumin levels lower than 2.5 g/dL or in patients receiving higher albumin infusion doses or in patients with impaired renal function. Owing to high heterogeneity and limited enrolled participants, further parallel randomized controlled trials are warranted to examine our outcome.
REGISTRATION
PROSEPRO ID: CRD42020211002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.
Topics: Albumins; Diuretics; Drug Combinations; Furosemide; Humans; Nephrotic Syndrome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34851962
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260312 -
Critical Care (London, England) Mar 2020Although current guidelines for AKI suggested against the use of furosemide in AKI management, the effect of furosemide on outcomes in real-world clinical settings...
BACKGROUND
Although current guidelines for AKI suggested against the use of furosemide in AKI management, the effect of furosemide on outcomes in real-world clinical settings remains uncertain. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between furosemide administration and outcomes in critically ill patients with AKI using real-world data.
METHODS
Critically ill patients with AKI were identified from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III database. Propensity score (PS) matched analysis was used to match patients receiving furosemide to those without diuretics treatment. Linear regression, logistic regression model, and Cox proportional hazards model were used to assess the associations between furosemide and length of stay, recovery of renal function, and in-hospital and 90-day mortality, respectively.
RESULTS
A total of 14,154 AKI patients were included in the data analysis. After PS matching, 4427 pairs of patients were matched between the patients who received furosemide and those without diuretics treatment. Furosemide was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67; 95% CI 0.61-0.74; P < 0.001] and 90-day mortality [HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.64-0.75; P < 0.001], and it was also associated with the recovery of renal function [HR 1.44; 95% CI 1.31-1.57; P < 0.001] in over-all AKI patients. Nevertheless, results illustrated that furosemide was not associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in patients with AKI stage 0-1 defined by UO criteria, AKI stage 2-3 according to SCr criteria, and in those with acute-on-chronic (A-on-C) renal injury.
CONCLUSIONS
Furosemide administration was associated with improved short-term survival and recovery of renal function in critically ill patients with AKI. Furosemide was especially effective in patients with AKI UO stage 2-3 degree. However, it was not effective in those with AKI SCr stage 2-3 and chronic kidney disease. The results need to be verified in randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Critical Illness; Diuretics; Female; Furosemide; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Propensity Score; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32131879
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-2798-6 -
Anaesthesia Feb 2018Loop diuretics remain a fundamental pharmacological therapy to remove excess fluid and improve symptom control in acute decompensated heart failure. Several recent... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Continuous infusion vs. intermittent bolus injection of furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Loop diuretics remain a fundamental pharmacological therapy to remove excess fluid and improve symptom control in acute decompensated heart failure. Several recent randomised controlled trials have examined the clinical benefit of continuous vs. bolus furosemide in acute decompensated heart failure, but have reported conflicting findings. The aim of this review was to compare the effects of continuous and bolus furosemide with regard to mortality, length of hospital stay and its efficacy profile in acute decompensated heart failure. All parallel-arm randomised controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until May 2017 were included. Cross-over randomised controlled trials, observational studies, case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews that involved children were excluded. Eight trials (n = 669) were eligible for inclusion. There was no difference between furosemide continuous infusion and bolus administration for all-cause mortality (four studies; n = 491; I = 0%; OR 1.65; 95%CI 0.93-2.91; p = 0.08) or duration of hospitalisation (six studies; n = 576; I = 71%; mean difference 0.27; 95%CI -1.35 to 1.89 days; p = 0.74). Continuous infusion of intravenous furosemide was associated with increased weight reduction (five studies; n = 516; I = 0%; mean difference 0.70; 95%CI 0.12-1.28 kg; p = 0.02); increased total urine output in 24 h (four studies; n = 390; I = 33%; mean difference 461.5; 95%CI 133.7-789.4 ml; p < 0.01); and reduced brain natriuretic peptide (two studies; n = 390; I = 0%; mean difference 399.5; 95%CI 152.7-646.3 ng.l ; p < 0.01), compared with the bolus group. There was no difference in the incidence of raised creatinine and hypokalaemia between the two groups. In summary, there was no difference between continuous infusion and bolus of furosemide for all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay and electrolyte disturbance, but continuous infusion was superior to bolus administration with regard to diuretic effect and reduction in brain natriuretic peptide.
Topics: Acute Disease; Diuretics; Furosemide; Heart Failure; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Injections, Intravenous; Length of Stay
PubMed: 28940440
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14038 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Jul 2016Therapeutic Reviews aim to provide essential independent information for health professionals about drugs used in palliative and hospice care. Additional content is... (Review)
Review
Therapeutic Reviews aim to provide essential independent information for health professionals about drugs used in palliative and hospice care. Additional content is available on www.palliativedrugs.com. Country-specific books (Hospice and Palliative Care Formulary USA, and Palliative Care Formulary, British and Canadian editions) are also available and can be ordered from www.palliativedrugs.com. The series editors welcome feedback on the articles ([email protected]).
Topics: Diuretics; Drug Interactions; Furosemide; Hospice Care; Humans; Internet; Palliative Care
PubMed: 27238657
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.05.004 -
Critical Care (London, England) May 2020The use of the furosemide stress test (FST) as an acute kidney injury (AKI) severity marker has been described in several trials. However, the diagnostic performance of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of the furosemide stress test (FST) as an acute kidney injury (AKI) severity marker has been described in several trials. However, the diagnostic performance of the FST in predicting AKI progression has not yet been fully discussed.
METHODS
In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to March 2020. The diagnostic performance of the FST (in terms of sensitivity, specificity, number of events, true positive, false positive) was extracted and evaluated.
RESULTS
We identified eleven trials that enrolled a total of 1366 patients, including 517 patients and 1017 patients for whom the outcomes in terms of AKI stage progression and renal replacement therapy (RRT), respectively, were reported. The pooled sensitivity and specificity results of the FST for AKI progression prediction were 0.81 (95% CI 0.74-0.87) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.92), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (LR) was 5.45 (95% CI 3.96-7.50), the pooled negative LR was 0.26 (95% CI 0.19-0.36), and the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 29.69 (95% CI 17.00-51.85). The summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) with pooled diagnostic accuracy was 0.88. The diagnostic performance of the FST in predicting AKI progression was not affected by different AKI criteria or underlying chronic kidney disease. The pooled sensitivity and specificity results of the FST for RRT prediction were 0.84 (95% CI 0.72-0.91) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.64-0.87), respectively. The pooled positive LR and pooled negative LR were 3.16 (95% CI 2.06-4.86) and 0.25 (95% CI 0.14-0.44), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 13.59 (95% CI 5.74-32.17), and SROC with pooled diagnostic accuracy was 0.86. The diagnostic performance of FST for RRT prediction is better in stage 1-2 AKI compared to stage 3 AKI (relative DOR 5.75, 95% CI 2.51-13.33).
CONCLUSION
The FST is a simple tool for the identification of AKI populations at high risk of AKI progression and the need for RRT, and the diagnostic performance of FST in RRT prediction is better in early AKI population.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Disease Progression; Exercise Test; Furosemide; Humans; Predictive Value of Tests; Renal Replacement Therapy; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 32381019
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-02912-8 -
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) May 2021[Figure: see text]. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
[Figure: see text].
Topics: Adult; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Female; Furosemide; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33550824
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.16133 -
Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Oct 2019The aim of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetics of furosemide in cats following intravenous (IV), oral and transdermal administration.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetics of furosemide in cats following intravenous (IV), oral and transdermal administration.
METHODS
This study used six healthy adult cats in a three-phase design to compare plasma furosemide concentrations in cats that received one IV 2 mg/kg dose of furosemide, one oral 2 mg/kg dose of furosemide and 3 days of q12h dosing with 2 mg/kg furosemide transdermally applied to the ear pinna.
RESULTS
After IV administration the elimination half-life was (mean and coefficient of variation) 2.25 h (72%), systemic clearance was 149 ml/kg/h (27.4%) and volume of distribution was 227 ml/kg (22%). After oral administration the terminal half-life was 1.2 h (18.7%), peak concentration was 3.4 μg/ml (51.7%) and bioavailability was 48.4%. The transdermal plasma concentrations were undetectable or very low at most time points, and pharmacokinetics were not determined from the transdermal dose.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Furosemide was rapidly eliminated in cats after oral and IV administration and is probably best administered orally at least q12h in cats with heart failure. The oral dose absorbed was approximately 50%, but the absorption from transdermal administration was negligible.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Analgesics, Opioid; Animals; Biological Availability; Cats; Female; Furosemide; Half-Life; Infusions, Intravenous; Injections, Intravenous; Male
PubMed: 30339054
DOI: 10.1177/1098612X18805879 -
Respiratory Care Jul 2007Numerous case reports, uncontrolled studies, and small randomized placebo-controlled trials have investigated the role of aerosolized opioids in the treatment of both... (Review)
Review
Numerous case reports, uncontrolled studies, and small randomized placebo-controlled trials have investigated the role of aerosolized opioids in the treatment of both dyspnea and pain. Recently, aerosolized furosemide was studied for the treatment of dyspnea. A direct effect on either pulmonary stretch receptors or irritant receptors has been proposed to explain the apparent effectiveness of these drugs. A review of the literature found 37 studies and reports: 23 on aerosolized opioids to treat dyspnea, 7 for analgesia, and 7 on aerosolized furosemide. In general, prospective double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials have investigated the effects of aerosolized opioids on dyspnea and exercise tolerance in patients with stable chronic cardiopulmonary disease, and found no effect. In contrast, the vast majority of studies found that aerosolized opioids relieved dyspnea better than parenteral opioids and with less systemic adverse effects in patients with terminal lung cancer and cystic fibrosis. However, most of these findings come from uncontrolled studies and case reports. Aerosolized opioids also have been found to provide effective analgesia, again with less systemic adverse effect. Small, generally uncontrolled, studies suggest that aerosolized furosemide may relieve dyspnea both in patients with terminal cancer and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Routine clinical use of aerosolized opioids to treat dyspnea in terminal illness will require large randomized placebo-controlled trials. However, until these studies are done, the risk/benefit ratio favors use of aerosolized opioids and furosemide in selected patients, based on the principle of compassionate care.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Analgesics, Opioid; Dyspnea; Female; Furosemide; Humans; Male; Palliative Care; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 17594733
DOI: No ID Found -
European Journal of Medical Research Sep 2023Furosemide, a frequently prescribed diuretic for managing congestive heart failure and edema, remains a topic of debate regarding its potential risk of inducing acute...
PURPOSE
Furosemide, a frequently prescribed diuretic for managing congestive heart failure and edema, remains a topic of debate regarding its potential risk of inducing acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients. Consequently, this study aims to examine the occurrence of hospital-acquired AKI (HA-AKI) in hospitalized patients who are administered furosemide and to investigate potential risk factors associated with this outcome.
METHODS
This study encompassed a cohort of 22374 hospitalized patients who either received furosemide treatment or not from June 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. Propensity score matching was employed to establish comparability between the two groups regarding covariates. Subsequently, a nomogram was constructed to predict the probability of AKI occurrence among patients who underwent furosemide treatment.
RESULTS
The regression analysis identified the single-day total dose of furosemide as the most significant factor for AKI, followed by ICU administration, estimated glomerular filtration rate, antibiotic, statin, NSAIDs, β-blockers, proton pump inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, and 7 other indicators. Subgroup analysis revealed a synergistic effect of furosemide with surgical operation, previous treatment with β-blockers, ACEI/ARB and antibiotics, leading to an increased risk of AKI when used in combination. Subsequently, a visually represented prognostic nomogram was developed to predict AKI occurrence in furosemide users. The predictive accuracy of the nomogram was assessed through calibration analyses, demonstrating an excellent agreement between the nomogram predictions and the actual likelihood of AKI, with a probability of 77.40%.
CONCLUSIONS
Careful consideration of factors such as dosage, concurrent medication use, and renal function of the patient is necessary for clinical practice when using furosemide. Our practical prognostic model for HA-AKI associated with furosemide use can be utilized to assist clinicians in making informed decisions about patient care and treatment.
Topics: Humans; Furosemide; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Acute Kidney Injury; Heart Failure; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37660080
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01306-0