Continuous frusemide infusion versus intermittent bolus therapy in paediatric intensive care: A single centre retrospective study
Issued Date
2024-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14412772
eISSN
26529335
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85210117918
Journal Title
Critical Care and Resuscitation
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Critical Care and Resuscitation (2024)
Suggested Citation
Preeprem N., See E., Namachivayam S.P., Gelbart B. Continuous frusemide infusion versus intermittent bolus therapy in paediatric intensive care: A single centre retrospective study. Critical Care and Resuscitation (2024). doi:10.1016/j.ccrj.2024.10.001 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/102246
Title
Continuous frusemide infusion versus intermittent bolus therapy in paediatric intensive care: A single centre retrospective study
Author(s)
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: Frusemide is a common diuretic administered to critically ill children intravenously, by either continuous infusion (CI) or intermittent bolus (IB). We aim to describe the characteristics of children who receive intravenous frusemide, patterns of use, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and to investigate factors associated with commencing CI. Design: Retrospective observational study. Setting: Paediatric intensive care unit (PICU), the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne. Participants: Children who received intravenous frusemide during PICU admission lasting ≥24 h between 2017 and 2022. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the daily dose of frusemide. Secondary outcomes included timing of therapy from PICU admission, fluid balance at frusemide initiation, additional diuretic therapy, and the incidence of AKI at admission and frusemide initiation. Children who received CI were compared with those who received IB only using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Nine thousand three ninety-four children were admitted during the study period. A total of 1387 children (15 %) received intravenous frusemide, including 220 children (16 %) by CI. The CI group were younger (132 vs 202 days, p = 0.01), had higher PIM-3 scores (2.2 vs 1.5, p-value <0.001), more congenital heart disease (CHD) (72.3 % vs 60.6 %, p <0.01), and higher incidence and severity of AKI at frusemide initiation than the IB group (65.7 % vs 40.1 %, p-value <0.001). CI were commenced later than IB (46 vs 19 h into admission, p <0.001) and at higher doses (4.3 vs 1.5 mg/kg/day, p-value <0.001). In multivariable analyses, CHD (aOR 1.67, 95 % CI 1.16-2.40, p <0.01) was associated with CI. Conclusion: Frusemide infusions are administered more commonly to children with CHD, later in PICU admission, and at higher daily doses compared to IB. Children who receive CI have a higher incidence and severity of AKI at initiation.