TY - JOUR
T1 - Restrictive versus liberal oxygenation targets in patients with acute heart failure and pulmonary congestion–A protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (The REDOX-AHF trial)
AU - Taraldsen, Ida Arentz
AU - Olesen, Anne Sophie Overgaard
AU - Lukoschewitz, Jasmin Dam
AU - Hansen, Ejvind Frausing
AU - Nielsen, Olav Wendelboe
AU - Hassager, Christian
AU - Thune, Jens Jakob
AU - Noory, Maryam
AU - Karamat, Arzu
AU - Hove, Jens Dahlgaard
AU - Grand, Johannes
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2026 Taraldsen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2026/5/22
Y1 - 2026/5/22
N2 - Introduction Acute heart failure (AHF) is the cause of one in twenty hospital admissions. Supplemental oxygen therapy is a routine treatment in the management of patients with dyspnea, including those with AHF. Current guidelines recommend oxygen therapy as part of the initial treatment, if peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) is < 90% or partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) is < 60 mmHg to correct hypoxemia. There is no clear evidence favoring restrictive or liberal oxygenation strategies in patients with acute heart failure. The aim of this study is to compare restrictive and liberal oxygenation strategies in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. Methods The study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive one of the two treatment-strategies: liberal oxygenation (SpO2 target of 96%) or restrictive oxygenation (SpO2 target of 90%). The intervention is administrated double-blinded using an automated oxygen administration device, titrating the oxygen supplementation towards the intended target SpO2 without it being visible for patients, investigators or clinical staff. The primary outcome is pulmonary congestion, measured by remote dielectric sensing (ReDS) after 24 hours, adjusted for baseline measurements. Conclusion This study will explore the current uncertainty regarding restrictive and liberal oxygenation targets in acute heart failure.
AB - Introduction Acute heart failure (AHF) is the cause of one in twenty hospital admissions. Supplemental oxygen therapy is a routine treatment in the management of patients with dyspnea, including those with AHF. Current guidelines recommend oxygen therapy as part of the initial treatment, if peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) is < 90% or partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) is < 60 mmHg to correct hypoxemia. There is no clear evidence favoring restrictive or liberal oxygenation strategies in patients with acute heart failure. The aim of this study is to compare restrictive and liberal oxygenation strategies in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. Methods The study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive one of the two treatment-strategies: liberal oxygenation (SpO2 target of 96%) or restrictive oxygenation (SpO2 target of 90%). The intervention is administrated double-blinded using an automated oxygen administration device, titrating the oxygen supplementation towards the intended target SpO2 without it being visible for patients, investigators or clinical staff. The primary outcome is pulmonary congestion, measured by remote dielectric sensing (ReDS) after 24 hours, adjusted for baseline measurements. Conclusion This study will explore the current uncertainty regarding restrictive and liberal oxygenation targets in acute heart failure.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105039657971
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0349791
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0349791
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 42172256
AN - SCOPUS:105039657971
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 21
JO - PLoS One
JF - PLoS One
IS - 5
M1 - e0349791
ER -