SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Comparison of vasodilators for heart failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe effect of vasodilators in the management of heart failure (HF) remains inconclusive. This study aims to evaluate and compare the overall benefits of vasodilators to patients with HF.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to December 27th, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of vasodilators in the treatment of HF were included. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using R and Stata 15.0 software.
resultsA total of 5517 articles were retrieved, and 18 eligible RCTs were finally included, with 9188 participants. Network meta-analysis showed no difference in the mortality, readmission rate, incidence of adverse cardiovascular events, and serum creatinine (Scr) among different vasodilators. Urapidil was more effective in reducing NT-pro-BNP, compared with nitroglycerin [WMD=-975.64, 95%CI (-1558.32, -320.14)].
conclusionThere are no differences in the efficacy and safety among vasodilators in the management of HF. Especially, although nitroprusside may be the most effective in reducing mortality, there is no significant difference between other drugs. Given the low certainty of the evidence, current evidence suggests that vasodilators have limited efficacy in the routine management of HF. More well-designed RCTs are needed to validate these findings.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42022351231).
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.