Liberal fluid intake versus fluid restriction in chronic heart failure: a randomized clinical trial

IF 58.7 1区 医学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
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.

Abstract Image

慢性心力衰竭的自由液体摄入与液体限制:一项随机临床试验
限制液体经常被推荐给慢性心力衰竭患者,但评估限制液体效果的随机临床试验仍然很少。在这项多中心开放标签试验中,慢性心力衰竭门诊患者被随机分为两组,一组接受自由液体摄入建议,另一组接受限制液体摄入的建议,每天最多摄入1500毫升液体。试验的主要终点是3个月后的健康状况,由堪萨斯城心肌病问卷总体总结评分(KCCQ-OSS)评估。次要结局包括口渴痛苦和安全事件。在504名随机患者中(67.3%为男性),自由液体摄入组3个月后的KCCQ-OSS为74.0,限制液体摄入组为72.2,调整基线评分后的平均差异为2.17(95%可信区间为−0.06至4.39;P = 0.06),表明未达到主要结局。饮水限制组的口渴痛苦程度更高,两组之间的安全事件没有观察到差异。这些发现质疑了限制液体对慢性心力衰竭的益处。ClinicalTrials.gov注册:NCT04551729。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nature Medicine
Nature Medicine 医学-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
100.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
525
审稿时长
1 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信