Cited by 56Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementHeart rate and cardiovascular healthCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

Digitalis for treatment of heart failure in patients in sinus rhythm

Open access
Hood Jr., William B, Dans, Antonio L, Guyatt, Gordon H, Jaeschke, Roman, McMurray, John JV·2014·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Digitalis glycosides have been in clinical use for the treatment of heart failure (HF) for longer than 200 years. In recent years, several trials have been conducted to address concerns about their efficacy and toxicity. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of digitalis glycosides in treating HF in patients with normal sinus rhythm. To examine the effects of digitalis in patients taking diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; in patients with varying severity and duration of disease; in patients with prior exposure to digitalis versus no prior exposure; and in patients with "HF due to systolic dysfunction" versus "HF with preserved ejection fraction." SEARCH METHODS: Searches on the following databases were updated in May 2013: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Dissertation Abstracts. Annual meeting abstracts of the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the European Society of Cardiology were searched from 1996 to March 2013. In addition, reference lists provided by the pharmaceutical industry (GlaxoSmithKline and Covis Pharma) were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Included were randomized placebo-controlled trials of 20 or more adult participants of either sex with symptomatic HF who were studied for seven weeks or longer. Excluded were trials in which the prevalence of atrial fibrillation was 2% or greater, or in which any arrhythmia that might compromise cardiac function or any potentially reversible cause of HF such as acute ischemic heart disease or myocarditis was present. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Articles selected from the searches described above were evaluated in a joint effort of the review authors. The staff of the Cochrane Heart Group ran searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. MAIN RESULTS: No new studies were identified in the updated searches. Thirteen studies (7896 participants) are included, and major endpoints of mortality, hospitalization, and clinical status, based respectively on 8, 4, and 12 of these selected studies, were recorded and analyzed. The data show no evidence of a difference in mortality between treatment and control groups, whereas digitalis therapy is associated with lower rates of both hospitalization and clinical deterioration. The largest study, in which most participants were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, showed a significant rise in "other cardiac" deaths, possibly due to arrhythmias. However collectively, these findings were based on studies done before beta-blockers, as well as angiotensin receptor blockers and aldosterone antagonists, became widely used to treat HF. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The literature indicates that digitalis may have a useful role in the treatment of patients with HF who are in normal sinus rhythm. New trials are needed to elucidate the importance of the dosage of digitalis and its usefulness in the era of beta-blockers and other agents shown to be effective in treating HF.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd002901.pub3

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • None of these studies provide meaningful insight into the relative benefit, or harm, of digoxin in light of contemporary HFrEF therapy.

    “None of these studies provide meaningful insight into the relative benefit, or harm, of digoxin in light of contemporary HFrEF therapy.”

    From CCS/CHFS Heart Failure Guidelines Update: Defining a New Pharmacologic Standard of Care for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (2021) · cites this paper as [75]

    The Implications for research section (page not specified) says up-to-date evidence is lacking and that digoxin’s interactions with beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone inhibitors remain uncertain. But the Discussion (page not specified) says the trials do provide evidence of benefit in patients taking ACE inhibitors, so saying none provide meaningful insight is too absolute. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There has been substantial use of digoxin as background therapy in the current era of HFrEF landmark trials with no apparent change in outcomes stratified according to baseline digoxin use.

    “There has been substantial use of digoxin as background therapy in the current era of HFrEF landmark trials with no apparent change in outcomes stratified according to baseline digoxin use.”

    From CCS/CHFS Heart Failure Guidelines Update: Defining a New Pharmacologic Standard of Care for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (2021) · cites this paper as [75]

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) reports substantial digoxin use in several heart-failure trials and says the other treatments remained effective in participants already receiving digitalis. It does not report outcomes stratified by baseline digoxin use or establish that those outcomes were unchanged across strata. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A subsequent systematic review of 13 studies (which included the DIG trial) showed similar results.

    “A subsequent systematic review of 13 studies (which included the DIG trial) showed similar results.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hood Jr., W. B., Dans, A. L., Guyatt, G. H., Jaeschke, R., & McMurray, J. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington; Department of Medicine; Seattle WA USA
  • University of the Philippines Manila (PH)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Western Infirmary (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-04-28
Volume
2016
Issue
4
Pages
CD002901-CD002901
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1495679617
Cited by
56
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
University of Bristol
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart rate and cardiovascular health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
digitalis glycosides, heart failure, sinus rhythm, mortality, hospitalization, clinical deterioration, cardiac arrhythmias, ACE inhibitors, diuretics, beta-blockers, systolic dysfunction, preserved ejection fraction, drug toxicity, beta-blocker withdrawal, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
MeSH terms
Cardiotonic Agents, Digitalis Glycosides, Double-Blind Method, Heart Failure, Heart Rate, Hospitalization, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Disease Progression, Cross-Over Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review