Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29411216›Full record

SynthesisHeart failure reviews2018

Pharmacological treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction-a systematic review and indirect comparison.

Kwadwo Osei Bonsu, Poukwan Arunmanakul, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Peak OESC heart failure · 2022
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Are SGLT-2 Inhibitors the Future of Heart Failure Treatment? The EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced Trials.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Kwadwo Osei BonsuDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Poukwan ArunmanakulPharmaceutical Care Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Nathorn ChaiyakunaprukPharmaceutical Care Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. nathorn.chaiyakunapruk@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4572-8794
Monash University Malaysia · MYChiang Mai University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have failed to reduce mortality and hospitalization. Evidence for mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs), β-adrenoceptor blockers (β-blockers), and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs)-to reduce clinical outcomes in HFpEF remains unclear. We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pharmacological treatments in HFpEF diagnosed according the recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2016 guidelines from inception to August, 2017. The study outcomes were mortality, hospitalization, changes in indexes of cardiac structure and function, biomarkers, and indexes of functional capacity-quality of life (QoL) assessment and 6-min walk distance test (6-MWD). The random-effects models were used to estimate pooled relative risks (RRs) for the binary outcomes and standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes, with 95% CI. A network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was employed to estimate the comparative efficacy of treatments. We included data from 15 RCTs comprising 5930 patients. There was no significant effect seen with all treatments compared with placebo and comparative efficacy of any two treatments on all outcomes assessed. However, mineralocorticoid antagonist spironolactone demonstrated a trend towards reducing mortality compared with placebo (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.79-1.08), sildenafil (0.14; 0.01-2.78), perindopril (0.87; 0.59-1.28), and eplerenone (0.91; 0.25-3.33). Similar trends in treatment effect were observed with spironolactone on surrogate outcomes while eplerenone demonstrated a trend of superior effect in reduction of hospitalizations compared with all other drug treatment. No drug treatment demonstrated statistically significant improvement in clinical and surrogate outcomes in HFpEF diagnosed according to the ESC 2016 guideline. Spironolactone and eplerenone showed clinically relevant reduction in mortality and hospitalization respectively compared with other drug treatments. Further trials with MRAs are warranted to confirm treatment effects in HFpEF.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsHeart FailureHumansStroke VolumeAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAngiotensin-Converting Enzyme InhibitorsHeart failureMeta-analysisPharmacological treatmentPreserved ejection fraction

Identifiers

PMID29411216
OpenAlexW2793409320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.