Evidence Hub

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intravenous iron therapy for patients with heart failure and iron deficiency

S. Anker, Mahir Karakas, R. Mentz, P. Ponikowski, Javed Butler, Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, K. Talha, Paul R. Kalra et al.

Nature Medicine, 2025

7,175 participants · 89 citations

Abstract

Uncertainty remains about the effect of intravenous (i.v.) iron on outcomes for heart failure (HF) with iron deficiency. In the present study, we summarize the efficacy and safety of i.v. iron from six trials (FAIR-HF, CONFIRM-HF, AFFIRM-AHF, IRONMAN, HEART-FID and FAIR-HF2), including 7,175 patients. In comparison to prior analyses, this meta-analysis added new data from FAIR-HF2, used a harmonized and robust Bayesian approach and included individual participant data from five trials. Patients assigned to i.v. iron, compared with those assigned to placebo, had lower rates for the composite endpoint of recurrent HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) = 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.55–0.89)) and for the complete length of follow-up (RR = 0.81 (95% CI = 0.63–0.97)). Each component of the primary endpoint contributed to the beneficial effect of i.v. iron at both 12 months and the complete length of follow-up: recurrent HF hospitalizations (RR = 0.69 (95% CI = 0.48–0.88) and RR = 0.78 (95% CI = 0.55–0.98), respectively) and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80 (95% CI = 0.61–1.03) and HR = 0.87 (95% CI = 0.73–1.04), respectively). All-cause mortality at 12 months and for the complete length of follow-up (HR = 0.82 (95% CI = 0.65–1.03)) and HR = 0.92 (95% CI = 0.80–1.07), respectively, indicated the overall safety of i.v. iron treatment. Treatment effects were greatest in the first year after randomization when the…

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: 7,175 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