ReviewCureus2024
Assessing the Effect of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) on Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Impact of sodium‒glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with recent versus previous myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Pooled it
- Beyond glycemic control: SGLT2 inhibitors as time-sensitive organ-protective agents in acute injury-mechanistic insights and translational implications.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Sex-consistent outcomes in SGLT2 inhibitor-treated acute myocardial infarction patients: a real-world study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
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
After acute myocardial infarction, patients are at increased risk for adverse outcomes, including heart failure and death. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have shown promising cardiovascular benefits, but their efficacy in patients after myocardial infarction is not well established. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SGLT2i in preventing cardiovascular outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective and prospective studies evaluating SGLT2i in patients after myocardial infarction. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, and rehospitalization. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The meta-analysis included eight studies (three RCTs and five observational studies) with a follow-up duration ranging from 4 to 24 months. SGLT2i were associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE (RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.97, p = 0.03) and rehospitalization (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, p<0.01) compared to controls. Although not statistically significant, the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.53-1.18, p = 0.25) and cardiovascular mortality was lower in the SGLT2i group. This meta-analysis suggests that SGLT2i may improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, particularly by reducing the risk of MACEs and rehospitalization. However, larger trials with high-risk populations are needed to confirm these findings and elucidate the underlying mechanisms.
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.