OBJECTIVES: To document the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the multiracial population of Malaysia, and to describe the clinical features and management of these patients.

SETTING: Busy city centre general hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, over a 1-month period.

SUBJECTS: One-thousand four hundred and thirty-five acute medical admissions, of whom 40 patients (2.8%) had AF.

RESULTS: Of 1435 acute medical admissions to Kuala Lumpur General Hospital over the 4-week study period, 40 had AF (21 male, 19 female; mean age 65 years). Of these, 18 were Malay, 16 Chinese and six Indian. Nineteen patients had previously known AF (seven with paroxysmal AF) and 21 were newly diagnosed cases. The principal associated medical conditions were ischaemic heart disease (42.5%), hypertension (40%) and heart failure (40%). Dyspnoea was the commonest presentation, whilst stroke was the cause of presentation in only two patients. Investigations were under-utilised, with chest X-ray and echocardiography in only 62.5% of patients and thyroid function checked in 15%. Only 16% of those with previously diagnosed AF were on warfarin, with a further three on aspirin. Anticoagulant therapy was started in 13.5% of patients previously not on warfarin, and aspirin in 8%. Records of contraindications to warfarin were unreliable, being identified in only 25%. For those with known AF, 58% were on digoxin. For new onset AF, digoxin was again the most common rate-limiting treatment, initiated in 38%, whilst five patients with new onset AF were commenced on amiodarone. DC cardioversion was not used in any of the patients with new onset AF.

OBJECTIVES: To document the prevalence of CHF in the multiracial population of Malaysia, and to describe the clinical features and management of these patients.

SETTING: Busy city centre general hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

RESULTS: Of 1435 acute medical admissions to Kuala Lumpur General Hospital over the 4-week study period, 97 patients (6.7%) were admitted with the primary diagnosis of CHF. Coronary artery disease was the main aetiology of CHF, accounting for almost half (49.5%) the patients, followed by hypertension (18.6%). However, there were variations in associated aetiological factors between ethnic groups, with diabetes mellitus affecting the majority of Indians-as well as underutilisation of standard drugs for CHF, such as the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, which were only used in 43.3%.

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.