-
JACC. Heart Failure Feb 2022This study sought to estimate and compare the aggregate treatment benefit of pharmacological therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to estimate and compare the aggregate treatment benefit of pharmacological therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.
BACKGROUND
The estimated treatment effects of various combinations of contemporary HF medical therapies are not well characterized.
METHODS
We performed a systematic network meta-analysis, using MEDLINE/EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials published between January 1987 and January 2020. We included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate, ivabradine, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat, and omecamtiv-mecarbil. The primary outcome was all-cause death. We estimated the life-years gained in 2 HF populations (BIOSTAT-CHF [BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure] and ASIAN-HF [Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Registry]).
RESULTS
We identified 75 relevant trials representing 95,444 participants. A combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was most effective in reducing all-cause death (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.31-0.49); followed by ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32-0.53); and ARNi, BB, and MRA (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.36-0.54). Results were similar for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for HF (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.29-0.46 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.35-0.56 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and omecamtiv-mecarbil; and HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.34-0.55 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat). The estimated additional number of life-years gained for a 70-year-old patient on ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was 5.0 years (2.5-7.5 years) compared with no treatment in secondary analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the estimated aggregate benefit is greatest for a combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i.
Topics: Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Heart Failure; Humans; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 34895860
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2021.09.004 -
Journal of the American Medical... Apr 2018Use of certain medications is recognized as a major and modifiable risk factor for falls. Although the literature on psychotropic drugs is compelling, the literature on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Use of certain medications is recognized as a major and modifiable risk factor for falls. Although the literature on psychotropic drugs is compelling, the literature on cardiovascular drugs as potential fall-risk-increasing drugs is conflicting. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide a comprehensive overview of the associations between cardiovascular medications and fall risk in older adults.
METHODS
Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO. Key search concepts were "fall," "aged," "causality," and "medication." Studies that investigated cardiovascular medications as risk factors for falls in participants ≥60 years old or participants with a mean age of 70 or older were included. A meta-analysis was performed using the generic inverse variance method, pooling unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) separately.
RESULTS
In total, 131 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis using adjusted ORs showed significant results (pooled OR [95% confidence interval]) for loop diuretics, OR 1.36 (1.17, 1.57), and beta-blocking agents, OR 0.88 (0.80, 0.97). Meta-analysis using unadjusted ORs showed significant results for digitalis, OR 1.60 (1.08, 2.36); digoxin, OR 2.06 (1.56, 2.74); and statins, OR 0.80 (0.65, 0.98). Most of the meta-analyses resulted in substantial heterogeneity that mostly did not disappear after stratification for population and setting. In a descriptive synthesis, consistent associations were not observed.
CONCLUSION
Loop diuretics were significantly associated with increased fall risk, whereas beta-blockers were significantly associated with decreased fall risk. Digitalis and digoxin may increase the risk of falling, and statins may reduce it. For the majority of cardiovascular medication groups, outcomes were inconsistent. Furthermore, recent studies indicate that specific drug properties, such as selectivity of beta-blockers, may affect fall risk, and drug-disease interaction also may play a role. Thus, studies addressing these issues are warranted to obtain a better understanding of drug-related falls.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cardiovascular Agents; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Prevalence; Risk Assessment; Sex Factors; United Kingdom
PubMed: 29396189
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.12.013 -
JACC. Heart Failure Apr 2024Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with reduced ejection fraction, despite recent trials with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is).
OBJECTIVES
The authors aimed to estimate the aggregate therapeutic benefit of drugs for HFmrEF and HFpEF.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomized trials including patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%, treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (analyzed together as renin-angiotensin system inhibitors [RASi]), beta-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, ARNI, and SGLT2i. An additive component network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and first hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); secondary outcomes were CV death, total HHF, and all-cause mortality.
RESULTS
The authors identified 13 studies with a total of 29,875 patients and a mean LVEF of 56.3% ± 8.7%. ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i separately, but not RASi, BB, or digoxin, reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo. The combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was the most effective (HR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.70]); this was largely explained by the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i (HR: 0.56 [95% CI 0.43-0.71]). Results were similar for CV death (HR: 0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.91] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) or total HHF (HR: 0.49 [95% CI 0.33-0.71] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) alone. In a subgroup analysis, only SGLT2i had a consistent benefit among all LVEF subgroups, whereas the triple combination had the greatest benefit in HFmrEF, robust benefit in patients with LVEF 50% to 59%, and a statistically marginal benefit in patients with LVEF ≥60%.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with HF and LVEF>40%, the quadruple combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i provides the largest reduction in the risk of CV death and HHF; driven by the robust effect of the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i. The benefit was more pronounced in HFmrEF patients.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Digoxin; Heart Failure; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Function, Left; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37656079
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2023.07.014 -
Cardiology Journal 2016There is growing controversy regarding the association between digoxin and mortality in atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this analysis was to systematically review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is growing controversy regarding the association between digoxin and mortality in atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this analysis was to systematically review digoxin use and risk of mortality in patients with AF.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, GoogleScholar, CINAHL, meeting abstracts, presentations, and Cochrane central databases were searched from inception through December 2014, without language restrictions. For a study to be selected, it had to report the risk of mortality associated with digoxin use in AF patients as an outcome measure. Data were extracted by 2 independent authors. Evidence tables were created.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies (6 post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials) with 111,978 digoxin users and 389,643 non-digoxin users were included. In a random effects model, patients treated with digoxin had a 27% increased risk of all-cause mortality (pooled HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.19-1.36) and 21% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (pooled HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.12-1.30) compared with those who did not use digoxin. In a random effects model, the association of digoxin with all-cause mortality was stronger for AF patients without heart failure (pooled HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.25-1.73) than AF patients with heart failure (pooled HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.07-1.36, interaction p = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Digoxin use in AF is associated with increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. The effect size was larger for AF patients without heart failure than AF patients with heart failure. The study suggests further directed analyses to study the effect that is suggested by this meta-analysis, especially in AF without heart failure.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Digoxin; Global Health; Humans; Survival Rate
PubMed: 27064796
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2016.0016 -
International Journal of Clinical... Feb 2017Background QTc-interval prolongation has been associated with serious adverse events, such as Torsade de Pointes and sudden cardiac death. In the prevention of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background QTc-interval prolongation has been associated with serious adverse events, such as Torsade de Pointes and sudden cardiac death. In the prevention of QTc-prolongation, special attention should go to high-risk patients. Aim of the review The aim of this review is to summarize and assess the evidence for different risk factors for QTc-prolongation (demographic factors, comorbidities, electrolytes, QTc-prolonging medication). Methods Potential studies were retrieved based on a systematic search of articles published until June 2015 in the databases Medline and Embase. Both terms about QTc-prolongation/Torsade de Pointes and risk factors were added in the search strategy. The following inclusion criteria were applied: randomized controlled trials and observational studies; inclusion of ≥500 patients from a general population (not limited to specific disease states); assessment of association between QTc-interval and risk factors. For the articles that met the inclusion criteria, the following data were extracted: study design, setting and study population, number of patients and cases of QTc-prolongation, method of electrocardiogram-monitoring, QTc-correction formula, definition of QTc-prolongation, statistical methods and results. Quality assessment was performed using the GRADE approach (for randomized controlled trials) and the STROBE-recommendations (for observational studies). Based on the number of significant results and the level of significance, a quotation of the evidence was allocated. Results Ten observational studies could be included, with a total of 89,532 patients [prospective cohort design: N = 6; multiple regression analyses: N = 5; median STROBE score = 17/22 (range 15-18)]. Very strong evidence was found for hypokalemia, use of diuretics, antiarrhythmic drugs and QTc-prolonging drugs of list 1 of CredibleMeds. Little or no evidence was found for hyperlipidemia, the use of digoxin or statins, neurological disorders, diabetes, renal failure, depression, alcohol abuse, heart rate, pulmonary disorders, hormone replacement therapy, hypomagnesemia, history of a prolonged QTc-interval/Torsade de Pointes, familial history of cardiovascular disease, and the use of only QTc-prolonging drugs of list 2 or 3 of CredibleMeds. Conclusion This systematic review gives a clear overview of the available evidence for a broad range of risk factors for QTc-prolongation.
Topics: Age Factors; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Brugada Syndrome; Cardiac Conduction System Disease; Diuretics; Electrocardiography; Humans; Long QT Syndrome; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 28012118
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-016-0414-2 -
European Heart Journal Jul 2015There are conflicting data regarding the effect of digoxin use on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or with congestive heart failure (CHF). The aim of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There are conflicting data regarding the effect of digoxin use on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or with congestive heart failure (CHF). The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide detailed analysis of the currently available study reports. We performed a MEDLINE and a COCHRANE search (1993-2014) of the English literature dealing with the effects of digoxin on all-cause-mortality in subjects with AF or CHF. Only full-sized articles published in peer-reviewed journals were considered for this meta-analysis. A total of 19 reports were identified. Nine reports dealt with AF patients, seven with patients suffering from CHF, and three with both clinical conditions. Based on the analysis of adjusted mortality results of all 19 studies comprising 326 426 patients, digoxin use was associated with an increased relative risk of all-cause mortality [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07 to 1.38, P < 0.01]. Compared with subjects not receiving glycosides, digoxin was associated with a 29% increased mortality risk (HR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.39) in the subgroup of publications comprising 235 047 AF patients. Among 91.379 heart failure patients, digoxin-associated mortality risk increased by 14% (HR 1.14, 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.22). The present systematic review and meta-analysis of all available data sources suggest that digoxin use is associated with an increased mortality risk, particularly among patients suffering from AF.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Digoxin; Epidemiologic Methods; Heart Failure; Humans
PubMed: 25939649
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv143 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) 2016The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was formed to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning. Here, we... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) workgroup was formed to provide recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments (ECTR) in poisoning. Here, we present our results for digoxin.
METHODS
After a systematic literature search, clinical and toxicokinetic data were extracted and summarized following a predetermined format. The entire workgroup voted through a two-round modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on voting statements. A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to quantify disagreement, and anonymous votes were compiled and discussed in person. A second vote was conducted to determine the final workgroup recommendations.
RESULTS
Out of 435 articles screened, 77 met inclusion criteria. Only in-vitro, animal studies, case reports and case series were identified yielding a very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Based on data from 84 patients, including six fatalities, it was concluded that digoxin is slightly dialyzable (level of evidence = B), and that ECTR is unlikely to improve the outcome of digoxin-toxic patients whether or not digoxin immune Fab (Fab) is administered. Despite the lack of robust clinical evidence, the workgroup recommended against the use of ECTR in cases of severe digoxin poisoning when Fab was available (1D) and also suggested against the use of ECTR when Fab was unavailable (2D).
CONCLUSION
ECTR, in any form, is not indicated for either suspected or proven digoxin toxicity, regardless of the clinical context, and is not indicated for removal of digoxin-Fab complex.
Topics: Animals; Cardiotonic Agents; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Digoxin; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Overdose; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis
PubMed: 26795743
DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2015.1118488 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 2015To clarify the impact of digoxin on death and clinical outcomes across all observational and randomised controlled trials, accounting for study designs and methods. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To clarify the impact of digoxin on death and clinical outcomes across all observational and randomised controlled trials, accounting for study designs and methods.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
Comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, reference lists, and ongoing studies according to a prospectively registered design (
PROSPERO
CRD42014010783), including all studies published from 1960 to July 2014 that examined treatment with digoxin compared with control (placebo or no treatment).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Unadjusted and adjusted data pooled according to study design, analysis method, and risk of bias.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome (all cause mortality) and secondary outcomes (including admission to hospital) were meta-analysed with random effects modelling.
RESULTS
52 studies were systematically reviewed, comprising 621,845 patients. Digoxin users were 2.4 years older than control (weighted difference 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.6), with lower ejection fraction (33% v 42%), more diabetes, and greater use of diuretics and anti-arrhythmic drugs. Meta-analysis included 75 study analyses, with a combined total of 4,006,210 patient years of follow-up. Compared with control, the pooled risk ratio for death with digoxin was 1.76 in unadjusted analyses (1.57 to 1.97), 1.61 in adjusted analyses (1.31 to 1.97), 1.18 in propensity matched studies (1.09 to 1.26), and 0.99 in randomised controlled trials (0.93 to 1.05). Meta-regression confirmed that baseline differences between treatment groups had a significant impact on mortality associated with digoxin, including markers of heart failure severity such as use of diuretics (P=0.004). Studies with better methods and lower risk of bias were more likely to report a neutral association of digoxin with mortality (P<0.001). Across all study types, digoxin led to a small but significant reduction in all cause hospital admission (risk ratio 0.92, 0.89 to 0.95; P<0.001; n=29,525).
CONCLUSIONS
Digoxin is associated with a neutral effect on mortality in randomised trials and a lower rate of admissions to hospital across all study types. Regardless of statistical analysis, prescription biases limit the value of observational data.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiotonic Agents; Digoxin; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26321114
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h4451 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Nov 2014Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the reported effects of treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and hemodynamic parameters. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in hospital, length of stay in intensive care unit, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations.
METHODS
Medline/Ovid, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, TOXLINE, International pharmaceutical abstracts, Google Scholar, and the gray literature up to December 31, 2013 were searched without time restriction to identify all types of studies that examined effects of various treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning for the outcomes of interest. The search strategy included the following Keywords: [calcium channel blockers OR calcium channel antagonist OR calcium channel blocking agent OR (amlodipine or bencyclane or bepridil or cinnarizine or felodipine or fendiline or flunarizine or gallopamil or isradipine or lidoflazine or mibefradil or nicardipine or nifedipine or nimodipine or nisoldipine or nitrendipine or prenylamine or verapamil or diltiazem)] AND [overdose OR medication errors OR poisoning OR intoxication OR toxicity OR adverse effect]. Two reviewers independently selected studies and a group of reviewers abstracted all relevant data using a pilot-tested form. A second group analyzed the risk of bias and overall quality using the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist and the Thomas tool for observational studies, the Institute of Health Economics tool for Quality of Case Series, the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines, and the modified NRCNA (National Research Council for the National Academies) list for animal studies. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence. Of 15,577 citations identified in the initial search, 216 were selected for analysis, including 117 case reports. The kappa on the quality analysis tools was greater than 0.80 for all study types.
RESULTS
The only observational study in humans examined high-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support. The risk of bias across studies was high for all interventions and moderate to high for extracorporeal life support. High-dose insulin. High-dose insulin (bolus of 1 unit/kg followed by an infusion of 0.5-2.0 units/kg/h) was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, at the risks of hypoglycemia and hypokalemia (low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal life support. Extracorporeal life support was associated with improved survival in patients with severe shock or cardiac arrest at the cost of limb ischemia, thrombosis, and bleeding (low quality of evidence). Calcium, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These agents improved hemodynamic parameters and survival without documented severe side effects (very low quality of evidence). 4-Aminopyridine. Use of 4-aminopyridine was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal studies, at the risk of seizures. Lipid emulsion therapy. Lipid emulsion was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal models of intravenous verapamil poisoning, but not in models of oral verapamil poisoning. Other studies. Studies on decontamination, atropine, glucagon, pacemakers, levosimendan, and plasma exchange reported variable results, and the methodologies used limit their interpretation. No trial was documented in humans poisoned with calcium channel blockers for Bay K8644, CGP 28932, digoxin, cyclodextrin, liposomes, bicarbonate, carnitine, fructose 1,6-diphosphate, PK 11195, or triiodothyronine. Case reports were only found for charcoal hemoperfusion, dialysis, intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella device and methylene blue.
CONCLUSIONS
The treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning is supported by low-quality evidence drawn from a heterogeneous and heavily biased literature. High-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support were the interventions supported by the strongest evidence, although the evidence is of low quality.
Topics: Animals; Calcium Channel Blockers; Disease Models, Animal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Overdose; Guidelines as Topic; Hospitalization; Humans; Insulin; Length of Stay; Observational Studies as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25283255
DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2014.965827 -
PloS One 2018During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the results of these reviews suggested that digoxin seems to increase the risk of all-cause mortality regardless of concomitant heart failure. Our objective was to assess the benefits and harms of digoxin for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter based on randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, BIOSIS for eligible trials comparing digoxin versus placebo, no intervention, or other medical interventions in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in October 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were heart failure, stroke, heart rate control, and conversion to sinus rhythm. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and chose the more conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence.
RESULTS
28 trials (n = 2223 participants) were included. All were at high risk of bias and reported only short-term follow-up. When digoxin was compared with all control interventions in one analysis, we found no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.82; TSA-adjusted confidence interval (CI), 0.02 to 31.2; I2 = 0%); serious adverse events (RR, 1.65; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.24 to 11.5; I2 = 0%); quality of life; heart failure (RR, 1.05; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 1141.8; I2 = 51%); and stroke (RR, 2.27; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 7887.3; I2 = 17%). Our analyses on acute heart rate control (within 6 hours of treatment onset) showed firm evidence of digoxin being superior compared with placebo (mean difference (MD), -12.0 beats per minute (bpm); TSA-adjusted CI, -17.2 to -6.76; I2 = 0%) and inferior compared with beta blockers (MD, 20.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, 14.2 to 27.2; I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses on acute heart rate control showed that digoxin was inferior compared with both calcium antagonists (MD, 21.0 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -30.3 to 72.3) and with amiodarone (MD, 14.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -0.58 to 30.0; I2 = 42%), but in both comparisons TSAs showed that we lacked information. Meta-analysis on acute conversion to sinus rhythm showed that digoxin compared with amiodarone reduced the probability of converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm, but TSA showed that we lacked information (RR, 0.54; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.13 to 2.21; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical effects of digoxin on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, heart failure, and stroke are unclear based on current evidence. Digoxin seems to be superior compared with placebo in reducing the heart rate, but inferior compared with beta blockers. The long-term effect of digoxin is unclear, as no trials reported long-term follow-up. More trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors assessing the clinical effects of digoxin are needed.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016052935.
Topics: Aged; Amiodarone; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Bias; Calcium Channel Blockers; Comorbidity; Digoxin; Female; Heart Failure; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mortality; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29518134
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193924