Intermittent administration of furosemide vs continuous infusion preceded by a loading dose for congestive heart failure

Abstract

Several reports have suggested that continuous intravenous administration of loop diuretics may be superior to intermittent administration. We performed a prospective randomized crossover study comparing intermittent intravenous administration (IA) of furosemide with continuous infusion following a single loading dose (LDCI) in nine patients with severe congestive heart failure. At the time of hospital admission, patients were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. One group (four patients) received an IV bolus injection of furosemide followed immediately by a continuous infusion for 48 h. The second group (five patients) was treated with three IV bolus injections a day for 48 h. Total doses of furosemide were equivalent in the two groups. After 48 h, each patient was crossed over to the other method and treated for an additional 48 h. LDCI produced significantly greater diuresis and natriuresis than IA (total urine output increased by 12 to 26 percent, total sodium excretion increased by 11 to 33 percent) (p less than 0.01). There were no significant differences in side effects between the two methods. These results indicate that LDCI may be a preferred method for administration of furosemide in patients with congestive heart failure.