| dc.description.abstract | Introduction Fluid overload in critically ill patients represents an adverse condition that
affects the clinical outcome of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Furosemide is
commonly used in the intensive care unit (ICU) as a diuretic in conditions associated with
fluid overload, but there are still several furosemide administration methods. Currently,
there is no general consensus regarding the superior furosemide administration method
between bolus or continuous administration. This study was conducted to see the
comparison between bolus and continuous administration on the improvement of fluid
overload.
Method This study uses a Single Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) design, where
researchers provide treatment, primary data sources obtained directly from examinations
on patients in the ICU. The selected population will be randomly divided into two groups,
namely the group that will receive treatment or intervention (in this case furosemide bolus
and continuous furosemide). Then Fluid Overload assessment was carried out using CFB,
UOP, and CVP indicators.
Results Total 42 samples were obtained which meet inclusion and exclusion criteria. In
the measurement of fluid overload indicators CFB, UOP, and CVP, there were significant
changes in each group before and after furosemide administration with a P value <0.05.
However, there was no significant difference in the final results of each indicator of CFB,
UOP, CVP in the comparison of furosemide bolus and continuous furosemide with P
value> 0.05. And there was no difference in mortality rates between furosemide bolus and
continuous furosemide during 72 hours of monitoring with a P value of 0.54.
Conclusion Bolus furosemide and continuous furosemide administration provide
significant fluid overload improvement in the critically ill population in the ICU, but there
is no superior method between the two. | en_US |
