SynthesisBMJ open2025
Low-dose versus high-dose intravenous nitroglycerin in the treatment of sympathetic crashing acute pulmonary oedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on efficacy, safety and outcomes.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 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.
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
objectivesSympathetic crashing acute pulmonary oedema (SCAPE) is a menacing medical emergency and a severe form of acute heart failure that requires urgent intervention. Nitroglycerin (NTG) is commonly used in SCAPE management, but the optimal dosing remains uncertain. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of high-dose vs low-dose NTG in SCAPE patients, assessing mechanical ventilation need, symptom resolution, hospital stay and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
designSystematic review and meta-analysis conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024527486). DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search in PubMed, Europe PMC and ScienceDirect up to November 2024. Reference lists of included studies were also reviewed. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing high-dose NTG (≥100 mcg/min) with low-dose NTG (<100 mcg/min) in SCAPE patients were included. Key inclusion criteria were acute dyspnoea (<6 hours), systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥160 mmHg, mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥120 mmHg, respiratory rate (RR) ≥30 breaths/min and sympathetic activation. Exclusion criteria included non-cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, immediate intubation, NTG contraindications, pregnancy and acute coronary syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of identified studies for eligibility. Full texts of potentially relevant articles were then reviewed. Any discordance or disagreements were resolved through discussion, with final decisions made by consensus. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 17.0 and Review Manager 5.4. The Mantel-Haenszel method was applied for dichotomous outcomes, and the inverse variance approach for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed via I-squared (I)
resultsFour studies (one RCT, three observational) with 185 SCAPE patients met inclusion criteria. High-dose NTG reduced mechanical ventilation need (RR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.96; p=0.04, I
conclusionsHigh-dose NTG improved clinical outcomes in SCAPE, reducing mechanical ventilation need, symptom duration and hospital stay without increased adverse events. These findings suggest high-dose NTG as a promising treatment strategy. Further large-scale studies are needed to optimise dosing protocols.
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.