Furosemide in pediatric intensive care: a retrospective cohort analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Furosemide is the most commonly used medication in pediatric intensive care. Growing data indicates improved hemodynamic stability and efficacy of furosemide infusions compared to intermittent injections, thereby suggesting furosemide infusions might be considered as first line therapy in critically ill, paediatric patients. The objective of this study is to examine furosemide treatment as either continuous infusions or intermittent injections and subsequent patient outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients treated in a pediatric intensive care unit (ICU) over a nine year period (July 31st 2006 and July 31, 2015). Eligible patients were admitted to either the general pediatric or cardiac specific ICU for a duration of at least 6 hours and who received intravenous furosemide treatment. Results: A total of 7,478 patients were identified who received a total of 118,438 furosemide administrations for a total of 113,951 (96%) intermittent doses and 4,487 (4%) infusions running for a total of 1,588,750 hours. A total of 5,996 (80%) patients received exclusively furosemide injections and 1,482 (20%) patients received at least one furosemide infusion. A total of 193 patients died during ICU admission, amounting to 87 (6%) of the 1,482 patients who received an infusion and 106 (2%) of the 5,996 who received intermittent injections. Multivariable regression analysis showed no statistically significant decrease in adjusted mortality for patients who received furosemide injections compared to furosemide infusions (aOR 1.20, CI 0.76-1.89). Discussion: This retrospective study observed similar mortality for patients who received furosemide infusions compared to furosemide injections. More research on furosemide in the ICU could provide insights on fluid management, drug effectiveness, and pharmacologic stewardship for critically ill children.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".