OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intravenous continuous infusion versus bolus injection of loop diuretics for the initial treatment of acute heart failure in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through systematic searches of bibliographic databases and in clinical trials registers including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CPCI-S on the Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry platform (ICTRP), and the European Union Trials register. We conducted reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. The latest search was performed on 29 February 2024.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with AHF, NYHA classification III or IV, regardless of aetiology or ejection fraction, where trials compared intravenous continuous infusion of loop diuretics with intermittent bolus injection in AHF. We excluded trials with chronic stable heart failure, cardiogenic shock, renal artery stenosis, or end-stage renal disease. Additionally, we excluded studies combining loop diuretics with hypertonic saline, inotropes, vasoactive medications, or renal replacement therapy and trials where diuretic dosing was protocol-driven to achieve a target urine output, due to confounding factors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened papers for inclusion and reviewed full-texts. Outcomes included weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission following discharge, and occurrence of acute kidney injury. We performed risk of bias assessment and meta-analysis where data permitted and assessed certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: The review included seven RCTs, spanning 32 hospitals in seven countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. Data collection ranged from eight months to six years. Following exclusion of participants in subgroups with confounding treatments and different clinical settings, 681 participants were eligible for review. These additional study characteristics, coupled with our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, improve the applicability of the body of the evidence as they reflect real-world clinical practice. Meta-analysis was feasible for net weight loss, all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission, and acute kidney injury. Literature review and narrative analysis explored daily fluid balance; cardiovascular mortality; B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) change; N-terminal-proBNP change; and adverse incidents such as ototoxicity, hypotension, and electrolyte imbalances. Risk of bias assessment revealed two studies with low overall risk, four with some concerns, and one with high risk. All sensitivity analyses excluded trials at high risk of bias. Only narrative analysis was conducted for 'daily fluid balance' due to diverse data presentation methods across two studies (169 participants, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect). Results of narrative analysis varied. For instance, one study reported higher daily fluid balance within the first 24 hours in the continuous infusion group compared to the bolus injection group, whereas there was no difference in fluid balance beyond this time point. Continuous intravenous infusion of loop diuretics may result in mean net weight loss of 0.86 kg more than bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.86 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.28; 5 trials, 497 participants; P < 0.001, I2 = 21%; very low-certainty evidence). Importantly, sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high risk of bias showed there was insufficient evidence for a difference in bodyweight loss between groups (MD 0.70 kg, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.46; 3 trials, 378 participants; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality between continuous infusion and bolus injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.90; 5 trials, 530 participants; P = 0.19, I2 = 4%; low-certainty evidence). Despite sensitivity analysis, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. No trials measured cardiovascular mortality. There may be little to no difference in the length of hospital stay between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.10 days, 95% CI -4.84 to 2.64; 4 trials, 211 participants; P = 0.57, I2 = 88%; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis improved heterogeneity; however, the direction of the evidence remained unchanged. There may be little to no difference in the readmission to hospital between continuous infusion and bolus injection of loop diuretics (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 3 trials, 400 participants; P = 0.31, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show insufficient evidence for a difference in the readmission to hospital between groups. There may be little to no difference in the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse event between continuous infusion and bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.49; 3 trials, 491 participants; P = 0.92, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis continued to show that continuous infusion may make little to no difference on the occurrence of acute kidney injury as an adverse events compared to the bolus injection of intravenous loop diuretics.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of available data comparing two delivery methods of diuretics in acute heart failure found that the current data are insufficient to show superiority of one strategy intervention over the other. Our findings were based on trials meeting stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure validity. Despite previous reviews suggesting advantages of continuous infusion over bolus injections, our review found insufficient evidence to support or refute this. However, our review, which excluded trials with clinical confounders and RCTs with high risk of bias, offers the most robust conclusion to date.
Methods: An observational study was conducted among 3935 patients presenting with acute upper respiratory illnesses in the ambulatory settings between 2012 and 2014.
Results: The VP4/VP2 gene was genotyped from all 976 RV-positive specimens, where the predominance of RV-A (49%) was observed, followed by RV-C (38%) and RV-B (13%). A significant regression in median nasopharyngeal viral load (VL) (P < .001) was observed, from 883 viral copies/µL at 1-2 days after symptom onset to 312 viral copies/µL at 3-4 days and 158 viral copies/µL at 5-7 days, before declining to 35 viral copies/µL at ≥8 days. In comparison with RV-A (median VL, 217 copies/µL) and RV-B (median VL, 275 copies/µL), RV-C-infected subjects produced higher VL (505 copies/µL; P < .001). Importantly, higher RV VL (median, 348 copies/µL) was associated with more severe respiratory symptoms (Total Symptom Severity Score ≥17, P = .017). A total of 83 phylogenetic-based transmission clusters were identified in the population. It was observed that the relative humidity was the strongest environmental predictor of RV seasonality in the tropical climate.
Conclusions: Our findings underline the role of VL in increasing disease severity attributed to RV-C infection, and unravel the factors that fuel the population transmission dynamics of RV.
METHODS: Patients admitted to hospital with acute biliary conditions in England and Wales between 1 April 2014 and 31 December 2017 were identified from Hospital Episode Statistics data. Time series of quarterly activity were produced for the Cholecystectomy Quality Improvement Collaborative (Chole-QuIC) and all other acute National Health Service hospitals (control group). A negative binomial regression model was used to compare the proportion of patients having surgery within 8 days in the baseline and intervention periods.
RESULTS: Of 13 sites invited to join Chole-QuIC, 12 participated throughout the collaborative, which ran from October 2016 to January 2018. Of 7944 admissions, 1160 patients had a cholecystectomy within 8 days of admission, a significant improvement (P
METHODS: The cross-sectional study was designed to investigate the occurrence of respiratory viruses including respiratory syncytisl virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (HMPV), influenza virus A and B (IFV-A and B), parainfluenzavirus 1, 2, 3 and 4 (PIV 1, 2, 3 and 4), human rhinoviruses (HRV), human enterovirus (HEV), human coronaviruses (HCoV) 229E and OC43, human bocavirus (HBoV) and human adenovirus (HAdV) in hospitalized children with ALRTIs, at Hospital Serdang, Malaysia, from June 16 to December 21, 2009. The study was also designed in part to assess the performance of the conventional methods against molecular methods.
RESULTS: Viral pathogens were detected in 158 (95.8%) of the patients. Single virus infections were detected in 114 (67.9%) patients; 46 (27.9%) were co-infected with different viruses including double-virus infections in 37 (22.4%) and triple-virus infections in 9 (5.5%) cases. Approximately 70% of samples were found to be positive using conventional methods compared with 96% using molecular methods. A wide range of respiratory viruses were detected in the study. There was a high prevalence of RSV (50.3%) infections, particularly group B viruses. Other etiological agents including HAdV, HMPV, IFV-A, PIV 1-3, HBoV, HCoV-OC43 and HEV were detected in 14.5, 9.6, 9.1, 4.8, 3.6, 2.4 and 1.8 percent of the samples, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated the increased sensitivity of molecular detection methods compared with conventional methods for the diagnosis of ARTIs in hospitalized children. This is the first report of HMPV infections in Malaysia.