Diuretic Effects of Subcutaneous Furosemide in Human Volunteers: A Randomized Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Furosemide is usually administered by the oral or intravenous route to cardiac patients with hypertension and heart failure, as well as edema. Occasionally, furosemide cannot be administered by these routes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diuretic/natriuretic efficacy of subcutaneously administered furosemide in healthy volunteers. METHODS: This single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover pilot study compared the diuretic effect of subcutaneously administered furosemide and NaCl 0.9% (placebo) in 12 healthy volunteers. The study was conducted over 5 days. Baseline values were determined on day 1. On days 3 and 5, each volunteer was injected with either furosemide 20 mg (2 mL) or 2 mL of placebo subcutaneously. A washout period occurred on day 4. Fluid and dietary intake were controlled on all 3 data collection days. Primary outcome measures consisted of urine volume voided, urine sodium concentration, onset time and volume of initial urine output, and number of voids during 8 hours of urine collection. RESULTS: All outcomes demonstrated statistically significant differences when treatment and placebo groups were compared (p < 0.05). Adverse effects most commonly reported by the participants were minor and included transient burning and stinging at the injection site. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that subcutaneously administered furosemide is a viable alternative when the oral or intravenous route of administration is not desirable or possible in humans. However, the results of this study need to be corroborated in various patient populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".