Impact of sodium‒glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with recent versus previous myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 8.5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardiovascular Diabetology Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1186/s12933-024-02540-4
Pedro Gabriel Scardini, Eric Shih Katsuyama, Alonzo Armani Prata, Julia Marques Fernandes, Christian Ken Fukunaga, Wilson Falco Neto, Ana Carolina Covre Coan, Naieli Machado de Andrade, Abraão Santana Silva, Rafael Petri Pinheiro, Luciana Gioli Pereira, Remo H M Furtado
{"title":"Impact of sodium‒glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with recent versus previous myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Pedro Gabriel Scardini, Eric Shih Katsuyama, Alonzo Armani Prata, Julia Marques Fernandes, Christian Ken Fukunaga, Wilson Falco Neto, Ana Carolina Covre Coan, Naieli Machado de Andrade, Abraão Santana Silva, Rafael Petri Pinheiro, Luciana Gioli Pereira, Remo H M Furtado","doi":"10.1186/s12933-024-02540-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sodium‒glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been included in heart failure (HF) guidelines because of their benefits in reducing mortality and hospitalization rates. However, the timing and benefits of initiating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) remain controversial. Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing SGLT2 inhibitors with placebo in patients with MI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with recent or previous MI. We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase for RCTs comparing SGLT2 inhibitors versus placebo in patients with MI. The primary outcome was (1) HF hospitalization. In this analysis, we also included the following secondary outcomes: (2) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI or stroke; and (3) all-cause mortality. A subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcome, comparing patients who had experienced an MI more than 8 weeks prior to study enrolment (previous MI) versus those who had experienced an MI within the preceding 8 weeks (acute MI). Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our meta-analysis included 10 RCTs comprising 22,266 patients, of whom 11,339 (51.2%) had type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 62 years, and the median follow-up was 21 months. According to the pooled analysis, HF hospitalization rates were lower in patients on SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69, 0.85; p < 0.001)). Differences in MACE were also observed in favor of SGLT2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79, 0.97; p = 0.012). There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the groups (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78, 1.00; p = 0.058). Benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors for the primary outcome were consistent regardless of the timing of last MI, with no treatment by subgroup interaction (p for interaction = 0.56).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this meta-analysis of patients who experienced MI, the administration of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with lower rates of hospitalization for HF. In addition, the treatment effect of SGLT2 inhibitors was consistent regardless of whether they were started in the recent versus previous MI setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":9374,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Diabetology","volume":"24 1","pages":"73"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11827181/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Diabetology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-024-02540-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sodium‒glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been included in heart failure (HF) guidelines because of their benefits in reducing mortality and hospitalization rates. However, the timing and benefits of initiating SGLT2 inhibitors in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) remain controversial. Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing SGLT2 inhibitors with placebo in patients with MI.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with recent or previous MI. We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase for RCTs comparing SGLT2 inhibitors versus placebo in patients with MI. The primary outcome was (1) HF hospitalization. In this analysis, we also included the following secondary outcomes: (2) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI or stroke; and (3) all-cause mortality. A subgroup analysis was conducted for the primary outcome, comparing patients who had experienced an MI more than 8 weeks prior to study enrolment (previous MI) versus those who had experienced an MI within the preceding 8 weeks (acute MI). Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random effects model.

Results: Our meta-analysis included 10 RCTs comprising 22,266 patients, of whom 11,339 (51.2%) had type 2 diabetes. The mean age was 62 years, and the median follow-up was 21 months. According to the pooled analysis, HF hospitalization rates were lower in patients on SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69, 0.85; p < 0.001)). Differences in MACE were also observed in favor of SGLT2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79, 0.97; p = 0.012). There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the groups (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78, 1.00; p = 0.058). Benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors for the primary outcome were consistent regardless of the timing of last MI, with no treatment by subgroup interaction (p for interaction = 0.56).

Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of patients who experienced MI, the administration of SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with lower rates of hospitalization for HF. In addition, the treatment effect of SGLT2 inhibitors was consistent regardless of whether they were started in the recent versus previous MI setting.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiovascular Diabetology
Cardiovascular Diabetology 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
15.10%
发文量
240
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Cardiovascular Diabetology is a journal that welcomes manuscripts exploring various aspects of the relationship between diabetes, cardiovascular health, and the metabolic syndrome. We invite submissions related to clinical studies, genetic investigations, experimental research, pharmacological studies, epidemiological analyses, and molecular biology research in this field.
期刊最新文献
Association of body composition with left ventricular remodeling and outcomes in diabetic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: assessment of sarcopenic obesity using cardiac MRI. Association between the systemic immune-inflammation index and metabolic syndrome and its components: results from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA). Predicting major adverse cardiac events in diabetes and chronic kidney disease: a machine learning study from the Silesia Diabetes-Heart Project. Stress hyperglycemia ratio and machine learning model for prediction of all-cause mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Association between the GMI/HbA1c ratio and preclinical carotid atherosclerosis in type 1 diabetes: impact of the fast-glycator phenotype across age groups.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1