ReviewAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2024
An in-depth evaluation of the efficacy and safety of various treatment modalities for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a major risk for pulmonary hypertension with poor prognosis. Limited data is available on the optimal treatment of choice. We aimed to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of CTEPH targeted therapies and update the evidence. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane library up to December 2023 to include randomized controlled trials comparing different therapies in patients with CTEPH. Primary outcomes were 6-minute walk distance (6 MWD), pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), and mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP). While secondary outcomes were the mean right atrial pressure (mRAP), Borg dyspnea score, cardiac output (CO), cardiac index, adverse events, and all-cause mortality. Results: Fourteen RCTs comprising 1047 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Regarding 6 MWD, PADN (MD=113.59, 95% CI: 53.80; 173.39), BPA (MD=48.84, 95% CI: 27.99; 69.69), riociguat (MD=42.59, 95% CI: 22.01; 63.18), treprostinil (MD=41.60, 95% CI: 17.07; 66.13), and macitentan (MD=34.00, 95% CI: 3.50; 64.50) were favored compared to placebo. In terms of PVR, BPA (MD=-392.19, 95% CI: -571.77; -212.62), treprostinil (MD=-287.20, 95% CI: -475.63; -98.77), PADN (MD=-280.61, 95% CI: -506.69; -54.52), bosentan (MD=-176.00, 95% CI: -340.91; -11.09), and riociguat (MD=-171.61, 95% CI: -298.40; -44.81) displayed statistically significant results. Conclusion: Current therapeutic modalities are effective in terms of improving exercise capacity, pulmonary hemodynamics, and reducing adverse events and all-cause mortality. Overall, BPA and PADN were superior to all other targeted medications in the studied outcomes.
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.