Background: Heart failure is a complication that often occurs in individuals with or without underlying cardiovascular disease. Furosemide serves to reduce preload and improve congestion symptoms. The aim of this study was to determine the difference in length of hospital stay between continuous infusion and intermittent bolus of furosemide in patients with acute heart failure.Methods: This study was a prospective-single blind-randomized controlled study of 54 people with acute heart failure who entered the emergency room and underwent treatment at the H. Adam Malik Hospital from October 2018 to March 2019. Re-examination of urine production, kidney function, and electrolytes was carried out after 72 hours of treatment. Subsequent subjects were observed during treatment for death during treatment and duration of treatment. Follow-up was carried out for 30-days to assess rehospitalization.Results: Between continuous infusion group and intermittent bolus group, we found, respectively, length of hospital stay 7.6±3.2 vs. 7.3±4.8 days, p=0.28; urine production 2241±429 vs 2020±368, p=0.048; ∆BUN 3.6 ± 14.5 vs 4.0 ± 10.9, p=0.91; ∆Ureum 7.9 ± 31.0 vs 8.5 ± 23.3; p=0.92; ∆Creatinine 0.1 ± 0.61 vs. 0.03 ± 0.33; p=0.56; and ∆GFR -5.5 ± 20.6 vs -2.7 ± 22.7; p=0.64. In terms of mortality during hospitalization, we found that 7.4% vs 11.1%, p=0.63 (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.098–4.1) and rehospitalization in 30 days showed 22.2% vs 37%; p=0.23 (HR 0.48; 95% CI: 0.14–1.6) in continuous infusion vs. intermittent bolus group, respectively.Conclusions: In patients with acute heart failure, there is no difference between continuous infusion and intermittent bolus of furosemide in regard to length of hospital stay, changes in renal function and electrolyte, death during hospitalization, and rehospitalization within 30-days. However, continuous administration of furosemide infusion is better in urine production.