Evidence Hub

Early versus delayed or no empagliflozin initiation after hospitalisation for heart failure in the United States: A target trial emulation

Greene SJ, Tskhvarashvili G, Tran P, Hermans R, Enshaeifar S, Adam A, Martinez Traba M, Schmedt N et al.

ESC heart failure, 2026

99,738 participants

Abstract

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) are a foundational therapy for heart failure (HF), yet initiation is frequently delayed in clinical practice. Evidence comparing outcomes associated with early versus delayed or no initiation following hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF) remains limited.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Optum de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart and included adults hospitalised for HF between September 2021 and December 2023. A target trial emulation using the clone-censor-weight approach compared patients according to the timing of empagliflozin initiation: during HHF or within 0-7 days post-discharge (early), 8-91 days post-discharge (intermediate), and 92-365 days post-discharge or no initiation within 1 year of discharge (delayed or no initiation). Outcomes assessed during the first year after discharge included all-cause mortality, worsening HF events, and all-cause hospitalisations. Health care resource utilisation (HCRU) was assessed using landmark analyses at Days 7 and 91 post-discharge.

Results: Among 99,738 eligible patients (mean age [standard deviation] 78.0 [9.2] years; 54.2% female), early and intermediate empagliflozin initiation were associated with lower 1-year post-discharge all-cause mortality than delayed or no initiation (risk ratio [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.78; and RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97, respectively). Further, 1-year absolute mortality risk was 24.7% with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 99,738 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free