Evidence Hub

Association Between Fluoroquinolones and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review

Hritvik Jain, M. D. Marsool, H. Q. Abbasi, S. Sulaiman, Adnan Safi, Yashdeep Lathwal, Shefali Mody, Jyoti Jain et al.

Cardiology in Review, 2024

42,808 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Fluoroquinolones (FQs) are routinely administered antibiotics that have demonstrated an increased propensity to cause major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We conducted a systematic review aimed to investigate the association between FQ usage and the risk of MACE. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2023 to retrieve studies comparing FQ administration with placebo and reporting the occurrence of MACE. Relevant studies that explored the occurrence of MACE, defined as "acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, arrhythmia, or heart failure" with FQ usage were eligible for inclusion. Four studies with a total of 42,808 patients were included. Levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and gatifloxacin were observed to have an increased propensity to cause MACE, particularly arrhythmias, whereas ciprofloxacin was associated with the lowest risk of causing MACE. Despite the methodological diversity in the included studies, this systematic review uncovered a consistent trend of heightened likelihood of MACE with FQ administration across studies, suggesting that elevated serum concentrations of some FQs may correlate with higher risks of MACE development. This systematic review emphasizes the need for cautious administration of FQs, particularly in patients with a preexisting cardiovascular condition. Routine cardiac monitoring using electrocardiograms is warranted for patients on high…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 42,808 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