Job J. Herrmann, Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca, Lisette E. H. J. M. Baltussen, Fabienne Beckers-Wesche, Sebastiaan C. A. M. Bekkers, Louise Bellersen, J. W. Martijn van Eck, H. Carlijne Hassing, Tiny Jaarsma, Gerard C. M. Linssen, Ron Pisters, Sandra Sanders-van Wijk, Marjolein H. I. Verdijk, M. Louis Handoko, Peter van der Meer, Frederik H. Verbrugge, James L. Januzzi, Antoni Bayés-Genís, Robby Nieuwlaat, Laura Rodwell, D. H. Frank Gommans, Roland R. J. van Kimmenade
{"title":"Liberal fluid intake versus fluid restriction in chronic heart failure: a randomized clinical trial","authors":"Job J. Herrmann, Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca, Lisette E. H. J. M. Baltussen, Fabienne Beckers-Wesche, Sebastiaan C. A. M. Bekkers, Louise Bellersen, J. W. Martijn van Eck, H. Carlijne Hassing, Tiny Jaarsma, Gerard C. M. Linssen, Ron Pisters, Sandra Sanders-van Wijk, Marjolein H. I. Verdijk, M. Louis Handoko, Peter van der Meer, Frederik H. Verbrugge, James L. Januzzi, Antoni Bayés-Genís, Robby Nieuwlaat, Laura Rodwell, D. H. Frank Gommans, Roland R. J. van Kimmenade","doi":"10.1038/s41591-025-03628-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Fluid restriction is frequently recommended to patients with chronic heart failure, but randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of fluid restriction remain scarce. In this multicenter open-label trial, outpatients with chronic heart failure were randomized to receiving advice for liberal fluid intake versus receiving advice for fluid restriction, up to 1,500 ml per day of fluid intake. The primary outcome of the trial was health status after 3 months, as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS). Secondary outcomes included thirst distress and safety events. Among 504 randomized patients (67.3% male), the KCCQ-OSS after 3 months was 74.0 in the liberal fluid intake group versus 72.2 in the fluid restriction group, with a mean difference after adjustment for baseline scores of 2.17 (95% confidence interval −0.06 to 4.39; <i>P</i> = 0.06), indicating that the primary outcome was not met. Thirst distress was higher in the fluid restriction group and no differences were observed for safety events between the two groups. These findings question the benefit of fluid restriction in chronic heart failure. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04551729.</p>","PeriodicalId":19037,"journal":{"name":"Nature Medicine","volume":"216 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":58.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03628-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Fluid restriction is frequently recommended to patients with chronic heart failure, but randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of fluid restriction remain scarce. In this multicenter open-label trial, outpatients with chronic heart failure were randomized to receiving advice for liberal fluid intake versus receiving advice for fluid restriction, up to 1,500 ml per day of fluid intake. The primary outcome of the trial was health status after 3 months, as assessed by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS). Secondary outcomes included thirst distress and safety events. Among 504 randomized patients (67.3% male), the KCCQ-OSS after 3 months was 74.0 in the liberal fluid intake group versus 72.2 in the fluid restriction group, with a mean difference after adjustment for baseline scores of 2.17 (95% confidence interval −0.06 to 4.39; P = 0.06), indicating that the primary outcome was not met. Thirst distress was higher in the fluid restriction group and no differences were observed for safety events between the two groups. These findings question the benefit of fluid restriction in chronic heart failure. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04551729.
期刊介绍:
Nature Medicine is a monthly journal publishing original peer-reviewed research in all areas of medicine. The publication focuses on originality, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest, and the impact on improving human health. In addition to research articles, Nature Medicine also publishes commissioned content such as News, Reviews, and Perspectives. This content aims to provide context for the latest advances in translational and clinical research, reaching a wide audience of M.D. and Ph.D. readers. All editorial decisions for the journal are made by a team of full-time professional editors.
Nature Medicine consider all types of clinical research, including:
-Case-reports and small case series
-Clinical trials, whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4
-Observational studies
-Meta-analyses
-Biomarker studies
-Public and global health studies
Nature Medicine is also committed to facilitating communication between translational and clinical researchers. As such, we consider “hybrid” studies with preclinical and translational findings reported alongside data from clinical studies.