High Dose Oral Furosemide with Salt Ingestion in the Treatment of Refractory Ascites of Liver Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of high-dose furosemide+salt orally by comparing HSS+ furosemide (i.v.) and repeated paracentesis in patients with RA. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 78 cirrhotic patients with RA, randomized into three groups: Group A (n= 25) i.v. furosemide (200-300 mg bid) and 3% hypotonic saline solution (HSS) (once or twice a day); Group B (n= 26) oral furosemide tablets (360-520 mg bid) and salt (2.5 g bid); and, Group C (n= 27) repeated large-volume-paracentesis (RLVP) with albumin infusion. Patients without hyperkalemia were administrated 100 mg of spironolactone/day. During the follow-up; INR, creatinine, and total bilirubin levels were measured to determine the change in MELD (model of end stage liver disease) score. RESULTS: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE), severe episodes of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and pleural effusions (PE) occurred more frequently in Group C. Improvement in Child-Pugh and MELD score was better in Group A and B than Group C. In Group B, improvements were seen in the Child-Pugh and MELD score, reduction in body weight, duration and number of hospitalization. In Groups A and B, remarkable increases in diuresis were observed (706±116 to 2425±633 mL and 691±111 to 2405±772 mL) and serum sodium levels also improved. HE and SBP were occurred more often in group C (p<0.002). Hospitalization decreased significantly in Group B (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in survival among groups. CONCLUSION: High dose oral furosemide with salt ingestion may be an alternative, effective, safe and well-tolerated method of therapy for RA.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".