Comparison of continuous versus intermittent furosemide administration in dogs with acute heart failure

Abstract

Pulmonary oedema is a life-threatening condition which should be treated promptly in the emergency room with oxygen, cage rest, and diuretic therapy. Traditionally, bolus administration of furosemide is the treatment of choice. However, there is emerging information that continuous rate infusion might be more effective than bolus injections in relieving clinical signs and producing a lower rate of complications such as azotaemia, dehydration, and electrolyte imbalances. We tested the effect of furosemide both in bolus (4–6 mg/kg intravenously) and continuous rate infusion (1 mg/kg/h) in 30 dogs that had been presented with fulminant pulmonary oedema during 2 days of hospitalization. No differences in the selected biochemical indicators between the groups were found. There were significant differences in blood urea nitrogen in the bolus injection group and creatinine and phosphorus in the continuous rate infusion group between days 1 and 2. The results of this study showed no differences in the approach of furosemide administration in the management of pulmonary oedema. Both methods may cause renal and electrolyte complications, however, further studies with a larger number of patients are recommended.