ReviewCureus2024
The Safety and Efficacy of the Early Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac structure and function in post-acute myocardial infarction heart failure patients aged over 65: a single-center experience.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a significant global cause of mortality, necessitating the exploration of innovative treatments against the condition. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) such as sacubitril/valsartan have demonstrated promise in managing acute heart failure (HF). However, despite favorable evidence from clinical trials for the use of sacubitril/valsartan in AMI, its overall efficacy remains a subject of debate. Hence, we conducted this review and meta-analysis, by adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and aligned with European Society of Cardiology recommendations, to compare sacubitril/valsartan with traditional ACEI/ARB treatments for AMI. We employed Review Manager 5.4 for statistical analysis, the Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 was utilized for quality assessment, and publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis. Our findings revealed that participants treated with sacubitril experienced significantly improved outcomes in terms of HF (OR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.95; p=0.01; I
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.