Evidence Hub

Comparative Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes of Empagliflozin and Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure Patients After Coronary Revascularization: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Ilhan Ozgol, C. Yıldız, Ece Yigit Gencer, D. Karabulut, F. N. T. Caglar, Burcu Bıçakhan, Melek Yilmaz, Umut Karabulut et al.

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2025

631 participants

Abstract

Background: Empagliflozin and dapagliflozin are the most widely prescribed sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) with established cardioprotective benefits across the spectrum of heart failure (HF). However, direct comparative data remain limited, particularly in patients with a history of coronary revascularization—a population at persistently high cardiovascular (CV) risk. This study aimed to compare the long-term cardiovascular outcomes of empagliflozin versus dapagliflozin in revascularized HF patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 631 HF patients who had undergone coronary revascularization (CABG or PCI) and were treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor (353 dapagliflozin, 278 empagliflozin) between 2014 and 2022 at a tertiary cardiovascular center. Patients were stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 50%: HFpEF; LVEF 0.05). Subgroup analyses by LVEF yielded consistent findings. In time-adjusted Cox modeling, age (HR = 2.089; 95% CI: 1.723–2.533; p < 0.001) and atrial fibrillation (AF) (log-rank p = 0.030) were identified as significant predictors of cardiac MACE, while creatinine and NT-proBNP lost significance after adjustment. Both age and AF showed time-varying hazard effects, with risk attenuation over time. Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of revascularized HF patients, empagliflozin and dapagliflozin demonstrated…

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: 631 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