ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Cardiac myosin inhibitors for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cardiac myosin inhibitors in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: advancing care with caution.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objective: HCM is a structural disorder of the myocardium that leads to sudden cardiac death in young adults. We synthesized an updated understanding of the role of Cardiac Myosin Inhibitors (CMIs) in HCM by pooling data from RCTs. Methods: We identified six published RCTs, involving 826 participants. Data were extracted pertaining to study characteristics; primary outcomes of interest-(1) change from baseline in resting left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) peak gradient, (2) change from baseline in Valsalva LVOT peak gradient, and (3) improvement of ≥1 NYHA class-and secondary outcomes. These were pooled using Review Manager 5.4, employing a random-effects model, and reported as odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs). Results: We found statistically significant between-group difference favoring CMIs in change from baseline in LVOT peak gradient: at rest (MD -39.33; -53.01 to -25.64), post-Valsalva (MD -48.99; -53.96 to -44.03), and post-exercise (MD -37.11; -44.34 to -29.87); ≥1 NYHA class improvement (OR 4.10; 2.79-6.02), change from baseline in peak oxygen uptake (MD -37.11; -44.34 to -29.87), LVOT gradient ≤30 mm hg (RR 14.89; 7.47-29.67), participants eligible for septal reduction therapy (RR 0.26; 0.18-0.36), and change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS score (MD 8.54; 5.36-11.71). Subgrouping by intervention type (mavacamten vs. aficamten) revealed non-significant results for all primary outcomes. Conclusions: CMIs can contribute to improving key efficacy outcomes for patients with HCM while reducing incidence of SRT.
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.