Evidence Hub

Evaluating the effects of empagliflozin in preventing myocardial injury in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A double-blind, randomized clinical trial

Hossein Behzad, Sina Mashayekhi, Hila Asham, P. Sarbakhsh, Taher Entezari-Maleki

Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research, 2024

90 participants

Abstract

Introduction: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is a fundamental procedure for coronary artery disease management, yet the risk of adverse events such periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI) persists. This double-blind, randomized clinical trial aims to assess the efficacy of empagliflozin in preventing myocardial injury during PCI procedure. Methods: A total of 90 patients were randomly assigned to two groups A and B; Group A as the intervention group received empagliflozin 25 mg 24 hours before and empagliflozin 10 mg 1-2 hours before coronary intervention and group Bas the control group received placebo at similar intervals. The primary outcome involved comparing baseline, 8-hour, and 24-hour cTnI and baseline and 24-hour hs-CRP levels after PCI in both groups to measure the incidence of periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI) and anti-inflammatory effects of empagliflozin. Results: Baseline cTnI levels with P=0.955, 8 hours after PCI with P=0.469, and 24 hours after the intervention with P=0.980 were not statistically different in the two groups. Baseline levels of hs-CRP in both intervention and control groups were not statistically significantly different (P=0.982). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in hs-CRP levels 24 hours after PCI in two groups (P=0.198). Finally, the results showed that MACEs did not occur in any of the groups. Conclusion: The results of this trial could not express the advantages of acute pretreatment with empagliflozin…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 90 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