Evidence Hub

Secondary analysis of the EMPACT-MI trial reveals cardiovascular-kidney efficacy and safety of empagliflozin after acute myocardial infarction

Aggarwal R, Bhatt DL, Hernandez AF, Anker SD, Harrington J, Jones WS, Mattheus M, Petrie MC et al.

Nature cardiovascular research, 2025

6,522 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Data on the cardiovascular–kidney effects and safety of empagliflozin among patients with acute myocardial infarction are limited. EMPACT-MI (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) was a double-blind, multicenter clinical trial that randomized 6,522 patients with acute myocardial infarction and risk for heart failure to empagliflozin or placebo. Here we show in this secondary analysis that the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline was 76.1 ml min−1 1.73 m−2 (s.d. = 19.9 ml min−1 1.73 m−2), with longitudinal kidney function data available for 1,152 (17.7%) treated patients from select countries. By 24 months, compared with baseline, the estimated glomerular filtration rate was similar in the empagliflozin group but declined in the placebo group (P = 0.01). Empagliflozin reduced the total adverse events of heart failure or all-cause mortality irrespective of kidney function (Pinteraction = 0.30). Thirty-day adverse event rates were similar by treatment group and consistent across baseline kidney function. Empagliflozin had kidney-protective effects, reduced heart failure outcomes and was safe to initiate soon after acute myocardial infarction across baseline kidney function. Aggarwal et al. report a secondary analysis of the EMPACT-MI trial, which evaluates the effects of empagliflozin according to baseline kidney function in patients after myocardial…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 6,522 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