Evidence Hub

Long-term effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on arrhythmias: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Li P, Chen W, Chen R, Zhang H, Yu Z, Yan H, Du B, Yang P

Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025

107,770 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Aims: Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are novel oral hypoglycemic agents strongly endorsed in the treatment guidelines for heart failure due to their cardioprotective benefits. However, their specific impact of SGLT2 inhibitors on arrhythmias incompletely understood. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the long-term effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on various arrhythmia types.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to 30 June 2024, to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow-up duration of at least 52 weeks. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL), and the secondary outcomes included ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), and sinus bradycardia. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the incidence of arrhythmias.

Results: Thirty-nine RCTs involving 107,770 participants were included. The results of meta-analysis revealed that patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had a reduced risk of AF/AFL compared with placebo (RR 0.86; 95%CI, 0.77-0.95; I2 = 0%; P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the risk of AF/AFL between the high-dose SGLT2 inhibitors group and the low-dose SGLT2 inhibitors group (RR 0.78; 95%CI, 0.60-1.02; I2 = 0%; P = 0.07), although a decreasing trend in the high-dose group…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 107,770 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