Evidence Hub

Redefining outcomes of ventricular arrhythmia for SGLT2 inhibitor medication in heart failure patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Miao Lin, Shiyu Zhang, Lu Zhang, Chengying Yang, Yang Luo, Yajin Peng, X. Tan, Q. Wen et al.

Systematic Reviews, 2025

74,380 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been shown to lower the risk of re-hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality among heart failure (HF) patients. Nevertheless, the impact of these agents on ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) has not been thoroughly investigated. To assess the beneficial impact of SGLT2 inhibitors on VAs in patients at various stages of HF, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials involving SGLT2 inhibitors in this patient population was performed. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Ovid, ProQuest, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed for clinical trials published up to November 21, 2024. The primary outcomes of interest were incidences of VAs and sudden cardiac death (SCD) between the groups receiving SGLT2 inhibitors and the control drugs. For the outcomes observed in the populations of the included trials and in specific subgroups, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled and meta-analysed across the analyses. A total of 23 randomized trials (22 placebo-controlled trials and 1 active-controlled trial) involving 74,380 patients (37,372 receiving SGLT2 inhibitors and 37,008 in the control group) were included. The analysed SGLT2 inhibitors included canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, bexagliflozin, sotagliflozin, and ertugliflozin. The participants were non-advanced HF patients, including at-risk for HF, pre-HF, and symptomatic HF, with follow-up duration…

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: 74,380 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