ArticleAnnals of pediatric cardiology
Randomized comparison of continuous versus intermittent bolus furosemide in neonatal heart failure.
Article in Annals of pediatric cardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances and unmet needs in pharmacologic therapy for pediatric heart failure: Insights from the 2025 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines.Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
- Challenges in managing pediatric heart failure, especially in resource-limited settings.Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: In term neonates with heart failure, optimizing diuresis is critical, yet evidence for best practice is sparse. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus furosemide in improving pulmonary status, hemodynamics, renal function, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay in neonates with heart failure. Materials and Methods: A randomized trial was conducted involving 52 infants (26 per group) to compare continuous infusion versus intermittent bolus furosemide. The primary outcomes measured were pulmonary status (oxygenation and ventilator days), hemodynamics, renal function, and ICU length of stay. Results: Infants receiving continuous infusion of furosemide showed more rapid improvement in ventilation and acid-base status. They had higher blood pH and lower PaCO Conclusions: Continuous infusion of furosemide provides steadier diuresis with superior pulmonary recovery, whereas intermittent bolus dosing yields comparable renal outcomes and hemodynamic stability. Clinically, continuous infusion may be preferred for neonates with pulmonary edema and ventilation needs, while bolus dosing can be used when electrolyte stability is paramount.
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.