Furosemide

IntroductionIn the setting of early acute kidney injury (AKI), no test has been shown to definitively predict the progression to more severe stages.MethodsWe investigated the ability of a furosemide stress test (FST) (one-time dose of 1.0 or 1.5 mg/kg depending on prior furosemide-exposure) to predict the development of AKIN Stage-III in 2 cohorts of critically ill subjects with early AKI. Cohort 1 was a retrospective cohort who received a FST in the setting of AKI in critically ill patients as part of Southern AKI Network. Cohort 2 was a prospective multicenter group of critically ill patients who received their FST in the setting of early AKI.ResultsWe studied 77 subjects; 23 from cohort 1 and 54 from cohort 2; 25 (32.4%) met the primary endpoint of progression to AKIN-III. Subjects with progressive AKI had significantly lower urine output following FST in each of the first 6 hours (pConclusionsThe FST in subjects with early AKI serves as a novel assessment of tubular function with robust predictive capacity to identify those patients with severe and progressive AKI. Future studies to validate these findings are warranted.

BackgroundAlthough 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.MethodsCritically 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.ResultsA 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 ConclusionsFurosemide 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.

BackgroundIt 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsBy 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 ( 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 ConclusionCo-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.RegistrationPROSEPRO ID: CRD42020211002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Inhaled furosemide shows potential for relieving refractory dyspnoea, yet clinical trials have yielded inconsistent results. We hypothesise this failure stems from a "Dyspnoea Paradox", where high inspiratory flows create an aerodynamic barrier. We evaluated furosemide delivery using a vibrating mesh nebuliser under simulated dyspnoeic conditions (tidal volume 1.39 L, frequency 28.6 min⁻¹). The study integrated standard Pharmacopoeial characterisation, in vitro deposition in a realistic human airway replica, and computational modelling (Large Eddy Simulation and Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry). While standard tests indicated optimal aerodynamic properties (MMAD 3.03 μm), realistic modelling revealed a critical barrier. Both experimental and computational results showed excessive deposition in the upper parts of the airways, caused by a "Laryngeal Jet" that increases inertial impaction and turbulent dispersion. Standard Pharmacopoeial methods thus yield false-positive predictions of delivery efficiency for dyspnoeic patients. We propose a mechanistic hypothesis that rapid inhalation associated with air hunger filters out a significant portion of the therapeutic dose before it reaches the target tracheobronchial receptors, which may partially explain the inconsistent clinical outcomes. Clinical strategies must therefore shift from dose escalation to flow-governed delivery or shape-optimised carriers to overcome this aerodynamic filtration.