Response to furosemide and the receipt of kidney replacement therapy in critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The administration of furosemide can predict the likelihood of clinical deterioration in patients with early-stage acute kidney injury (AKI). This study aimed to evaluate the response to a patient's first furosemide bolus administered during ICU admission in critically ill patients, and to assess the significance of this response in predicting the need for kidney replacement therapy (KRT). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital ICU between 2017 and 2023 who received a first intravenous furosemide bolus with documented urine output. Patients treated with continuous furosemide infusion were excluded. The response to furosemide was assessed at 2 and 6 h after administration. The primary outcome was the initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) within 7 days. RESULTS: A total of 1527 critically ill patients were included in the analysis. Among patients with urine output ≤25 mL/h during the first 2 h post-furosemide, 23.9 % received KRT within 7 days, compared to 8.8 % in the 25.1-50 mL/h group and 3.6 % in the >50 mL/h group (p < 0.001). Similar patterns were observed for urine output at 6 h. Lower urine output was also associated with greater AKI progression and higher KDIGO stages. In multivariable analysis, lower urine output at 6 h remained a significant predictor of KRT initiation (adjusted OR per 10 mL/h increase: 0.905, 95 % CI: 0.861-0.951). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the response to a first furosemide bolus administered during usual clinical care can be a valuable tool for anticipating the future receipt of KRT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".