ReviewCureus2025
Effect of Carperitide on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Single intramuscular injection of self-amplifying RNA ofScience (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
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
Heart failure remains a leading global health burden affecting over 64 million individuals worldwide, with limited effective acute management strategies. Carperitide, a recombinant form of human atrial natriuretic peptide, has been primarily used in Japan for acute heart failure treatment, but its clinical efficacy remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of carperitide in heart failure patients. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to July 2025, using terms related to carperitide and heart failure. Studies involving adult heart failure patients receiving carperitide that reported cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, or heart failure-related hospitalization were included. Six studies met inclusion criteria, comprising three observational studies, two randomized controlled trials, and one secondary analysis, published between 2008 and 2025. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 4.5.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration) with random-effects models. The pooled analysis of four studies examining all-cause mortality demonstrated no significant difference between carperitide and control groups (risk ratio (RR): 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-1.66), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 66%). Similarly, hospitalization due to heart failure showed no significant difference (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85-1.14) with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%). Composite outcomes of hospitalization and death also revealed no significant benefit (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85-1.14). This meta-analysis provides evidence that carperitide does not significantly improve clinical outcomes in heart failure patients, challenging its widespread use and supporting the need for evidence-based therapeutic alternatives in heart failure management.
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.