ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis focusing on the number needed to treat.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of chronic diuretic use in older adults: an umbrella review of recently published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized-controlled trials.European geriatric medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Salt sensitivity and myocardial fibrosis: unraveling the silent cardiovascular remodeling.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Recent studies have shown that mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) can decrease mortality in patients with heart failure; however, the application of MRAs in current clinical practice is limited because of adverse effects such as hyperkalemia that occur with treatment. Therefore, this meta-analysis used the number needed to treat (NNT) to assess the efficacy and safety of MRAs in patients with chronic heart failure. Methods: We meta-analysed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which contrasted the impacts of MRAs with placebo. As of March 2023, all articles are published in English. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and adverse events. Results: We incorporated seven studies with a total of 9,056 patients, 4,512 of whom received MRAs and 4,544 of whom received a placebo, with a mean follow-up period of 2.1 years. MACE, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality were all reduced by MRAs, with corresponding numbers needed to treat for benefit (NNTB) of 37, 28, and 34; as well as no impact on MI or stroke. MRAs increased the incidence of hyperkalemia and gynecomastia, with the corresponding mean number needed to treat for harm (NNTH) of 18 and 52. Conclusions: This study showed that enabling one patient with HF to avoid MACE required treating 37 patients with MRAs for 2.1 years. MRAs reduce MACE, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular death; however, they increase the risk of hyperkalemia and gynecomastia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.