Evidence Hub

Comparative effectiveness of dapagliflozin vs. empagliflozin on major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A real-world prospective cohort study

Huynh TLT, Tran HD, Pham PT, Tran ND, Nguyen NT, Cao HDTB, Nguyen SN, Nguyen APL et al.

British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026

1,231 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin are sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) with equivalent Class IA guideline recommendations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) between dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HFrEF patients treated in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This prospective real-world cohort study enrolled 1231 consecutive HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) at Can Tho Central General Hospital, Vietnam (March 2023 to March 2026). Patients received dapagliflozin (n = 622) or empagliflozin (n = 609) as part of optimized guideline-directed medical therapy and the primary outcome was MACE.

RESULTS

MACE occurred in 64 patients (10.3%) receiving dapagliflozin and 111 patients (18.2%) receiving empagliflozin. Following propensity score matching and multivariable adjustment, dapagliflozin was associated with significantly lower odds of MACE (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.30, 0.67]; p < 0.001). Hospitalization for heart failure was significantly lower with dapagliflozin (8.7% vs. 14.9%; adjusted OR 0.52; 95% CI [0.33, 0.80]; p = 0.003). Corrected all-cause mortality was 13/622 (2.1%) with dapagliflozin and 25/609 (4.1%) with empagliflozin (p = 0.048). Multivariable logistic regression identified four independent predictors of MACE: New York Heart Association functional class III-IV (adjusted OR…

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: 1,231 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