SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Clinical efficacy and safety of recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide in the treatment of sepsis complicated by heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure is among the most prevalent organ dysfunctions in sepsis and carries a high mortality rate. Currently, no specific drugs are available. Recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rhBNP) has demonstrated efficacy in treating isolated heart failure. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of using rhBNP in the management of sepsis complicated by heart failure (SCHF).
methodsEight databases were searched for qualified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 19 July 2025, with no language restrictions. The primary outcomes included 28-day mortality and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The secondary outcomes included total clinical effective rate (TCER), APACHE II scores, cardiac output (CO), and adverse events (AEs). The meta-analyses were conducted by R (version 4.5.0). We utilized the Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) software to perform TSA. Subsequently, the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework (the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system). This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42023491344).
resultsTen Chinese RCTs involving 1,182 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed that rhBNP combined with conventional Western therapy (CWT) was associated with reduced 28-day mortality (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58–0.92, p = 0.006) and APACHE II scores (MD = -4.18, 95% CI: -7.80 to -0.55, p = 0.024), and improved TCER (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.12–1.41, p < 0.0001), LVEF (MD = 4.91, 95% CI: 2.56–7.26, p < 0.0001), and CO (MD = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.21–0.74, p = 0.0005). However, rhBNP did not significantly reduce AEs (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.54–1.08, p = 0.13). The certainty of evidence was graded as low for CO and AEs, and very low for 28‑day mortality, LVEF, TCER, and APACHE II scores.
conclusionsAdjunctive rhBNP may offer cardiac and survival benefits in sepsis complicated by heart failure, but the evidence is of low certainty, non‑generalizable, and safety concerns persist. These hypothesis‑generating findings require confirmation by rigorously designed, multinational RCTs.
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.