4.2 Review

Is there sufficient evidence to justify changes in dietary habits in heart failure patients? A systematic review

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 37-47

Publisher

KOREAN ASSOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2020.623

Keywords

Heart failure; Diet; sodium-restricted; Diet therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The incidence and prevalence of heart failure are increasing globally, and management involves lifestyle changes and pharmacological treatments. Dietary recommendations for sodium and fluid restriction are expected to benefit HF patients, but there is currently a lack of clear evidence to support this.
The incidence and prevalence of heart failure (HF) is increasing worldwide, leading to high morbidity and mortality. The global management of HF involves lifestyle changes in addition to pharmacological treatments. Changes include exercise and dietary recommendations, mainly salt and fluid restriction, but without any clear evidence. We conducted a systematic review to analyse the degree of evidence for these dietary recommendations in HF. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT), and observational studies in humans were selected. Studies were considered eligible if they included participants with HF and sodium and/or fluid restriction. Publications in languages other than English or Spanish were excluded. We included 15 studies related to sodium or fluid restriction. Nine RCT and six observational studies showed some improvements in symptoms and quality of life and a degree of reduction in new hospitalizations, but the results are based on limited population groups, applying different methodologies, and with different restriction goals. We found a lack of clear evidence of the benefits of sodium/fluid restriction in chronic HF. The evidence is limited to few studies with conflicting results. Randomized clinical trials are needed to fill this gap in our knowledge.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available