Evaluation of Prehospital Use of Furosemide in Patients with Respiratory Distress

Objective. To evaluate the appropriateness of prehospital use of furosemide. Methods. All patients over 18 years old receiving prehopsital furosemide were retrospectively identified, andcases were matched to subsequent hospital records. Data collected included ED andhospital primary andsecondary diagnoses, brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels andfinal disposition. Furosemide was considered appropriate when the primary or secondary ED or hospital diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF) or pulmonary edema, or the BNP was > 400. Furosemide was considered inappropriate when none of the diagnoses included CHF, when the BNP was < 200, or when an order for IV fluid hydration was given. Furosemide was considered potentially harmful when the diagnoses included sepsis, dehydration or pneumonia, without a diagnosis of CHF or BNP > 400. Results. Of the 144 included patients, a primary or secondary diagnosis of CHF was reported in 42% and17% patients, respectively. The initial BNP was > 400 in 44% of the 120 patients in which this lab test was obtained. Sixty patients (42%) did not receive a diagnosis of CHF, 30 (25%) patients had a BNP < 200, and33 (23%) had an order for IV fluid hydration. A diagnosis of sepsis, dehydration or pneumonia without a diagnosis of CHF or a BNP > 400 occurred in 17% of patients. Seven of the 9 deaths did not receive a diagnosis of CHF. Furosemide was considered appropriate in 58%, inappropriate in 42% andpotentially harmful in 17% of patients. Conclusions. In this EMS system, prehospital furosemide was frequently administered to patients in whom its use was considered inappropriate, andnot uncommonly to patients when it was considered potentially harmful. EMS systems should reconsider the appropriateness of prehospital diuretic use.