ArticleCureus2025
Congestive Heart Failure Exacerbations and the Role of Urine Output Monitoring.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Monitoring fluid status is considered the standard of care for many patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU), but there is little data to support its utility outside of the ICU. Data linking urine output (UO) monitoring with shortened length of stay (LOS), specifically in non-ICU heart failure (HF) patients, is scarce. This study aimed to determine the relationship between the electronic medical record order to "monitor intake/output" and LOS in patients with HF exacerbation, the impact of consulting nephrology, and whether the timing of consultation would improve measured outcomes. Methods A hundred and twelve patient records with a diagnosis of "exacerbated heart failure", including International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 10 codes of I50.23 (acute on chronic systolic HF), I50.33 (acute on chronic diastolic HF), I50.21 (acute systolic HF), I50.31 (acute diastolic HF), I50.43 (acute on chronic combined systolic and diastolic HF), and I50.41 (acute combined systolic and diastolic HF) from McLaren Macomb Hospital, Mount Clemens, Michigan were reviewed, and the following clinical outcomes were evaluated: presence of physician order to "monitor intake/output" within the electronic medical record, comorbidities, stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD), grade of diastolic dysfunction, New York Heart Association stages of HF, types of diuretics used, LOS, readmission within 30 days, follow-up, frequency of urine monitoring per patient, and if there was a nephrology consult at the time of presentation. Results Seventy-one (63.4%) patients received urine monitoring every eight hours, and there were no statistically significant differences between physician-ordered monitoring and comorbidities, stages of CKD, diastolic dysfunction grade, LOS, or readmission rates. The mean LOS was slightly higher in patients with the physician's order. Conclusions Neither UO monitoring nor consulting nephrology was shown to significantly affect LOS or readmission rates in non-ICU patients with exacerbation of HF. Different methods in estimating volume status (e.g., daily body weight measurements, noninvasive monitoring devices) may substantially affect outcomes, and future studies are needed. .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.