ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2014
Statin therapy in heart failure: for good, for bad, or indifferent?
Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rosuvastatin Reduces L-Type CaCardiovascular toxicology · 2021Article
- Low circulating coenzyme Q10 during acute phase is associated with inflammation, malnutrition, and in-hospital mortality in patients admitted to the coronary care unit.Heart and vessels · 2017Article
- Relationship between lipids levels and right ventricular volume overload in congestive heart failure.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statins are effective in the prevention of coronary events and the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. However, their efficacy and safety in patients with heart failure (HF) is still a matter of debate. On the basis of literature evidence from subgroup analysis, retrospective, prospective cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials, in this review we try to answer the following question: Is statin therapy in HF patients for good, for bad, or indifferent? Some studies showed a negative impact of low cholesterol levels in patients with severe HF (endotoxin-lipoprotein hypothesis and coenzyme Q10 hypothesis). On the other hand, a large amount of literature demonstrates that in patients with HF, statins have a positive impact on survival and other outcomes, regardless of whether the HF was of ischemic or nonischemic origin, which is related to a combination of mechanisms (pleiotropic effects and cholesterol reduction). Much of this evidence, however, comes from observational and retrospective studies and subgroup analyses of statin use in patients with HF. Randomized clinical trials examining the efficacy of statins in HF (GISSI-HF and CORONA) did not show a benefit in mortality for patients with HF randomized to receive statins. Nevertheless, a meta-analysis found that statin therapy does not decrease all-cause or cardiovascular mortality but significantly decreases the rate of hospitalization for worsening HF and increased left ventricular ejection fraction compared with placebo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24277654What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.