Key result
Puerarin injection combined with conventional medicine significantly increased the total clinical effective rate (RR 1.38) and improved left ventricular ejection fraction compared to conventional medicine alone in patients with acute heart failure.
Why the study?
The study aimed to assess the adjunctive efficacy and safety of Puerarin injection for acute heart failure through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Does Puerarin injection added to conventional medicine improve clinical efficacy in patients with acute heart failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=614)
Does Puerarin injection added to conventional medicine improve clinical efficacy in patients with acute heart failure?
Puerarin injection as an adjunct to conventional therapy may improve clinical efficacy and LVEF in acute heart failure, though evidence is limited by poor trial quality.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports adjunctive puerarin for AHF with comparable safety; leaves open need for rigorous RCTs to confirm.
Objective This study aimed to assess the adjunctive efficacy and safety of Puerarin injection (PI) on acute heart failure (AHF) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Nine databases were searched from March 1990 to March 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to the adjunctive treatment of PI for AHF. The Cochrane collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Meta-analysis and subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. The evidence’s certainty was evaluated by grading recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methods. Results A total of 8 studies were included with a total of 614 patients with AHF. The meta-analysis demonstrated that adjunctive treatment with PI on AHF was superior to conventional medicine alone. It increased the total effective rate (RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22–1.55; p < 0.001) and improved left ventricular ejection fraction [SMD = 0.85; 95% CI (0.62, 1.09); p < 0.001]. Regarding safety, a total of 11.9% (23/194) adverse reactions were observed in the PI group and 9.8% (19/194) adverse reactions in the control group, and there were no significant differences in the incident rate of adverse events between both groups [RR = 1.16; 95% CI (0.66–2.05); p = 0.061]. The outcomes’ evidentiary quality was assessed as “moderate.” Conclusion PI had an adjunctive effect on AHF combined with conventional medicine, and it seemed to be safe and more effective than the conventional medical treatment alone for improving the total clinical effective rate and left ventricular ejection fraction. But further well-designed RCTs are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of XBP in treating AHF due to the poor methodological quality of the included RCTs. Systematic Review Registration: [ https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=327636 ], identifier [CRD42022327636].
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Acute heart failure (n=614). Puerarin injection vs. Conventional western medicine treatment was evaluated on Total clinical effective rate (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.22-1.55, p=<0.001). Puerarin injection combined with conventional medicine significantly increased the total clinical effective rate (RR 1.38) and improved left ventricular ejection fraction compared to conventional medicine alone in patients with acute heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: