Cochrane · systematic review · CD009889
Nurse‐led titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, beta‐adrenergic blocking agents, and angiotensin receptor blockers for people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
Driscoll, A, Currey, J, Tonkin, A, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library
HeartAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 20%Moderate 3 · 60%High 1 · 20%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Nurse‐led titration versus usual care for people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
Population: people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
All‐cause hospital admissions Nurse‐led titration vs usual care | RR 0.8 [0.72, 0.88] | 4 studies · 560 participants | High |
Heart failure‐related hospital admissions Nurse‐led titration vs usual care | RR 0.51 [0.36, 0.72] | 4 studies · 642 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
All‐cause mortality Nurse‐led titration vs usual care | RR 0.66 [0.48, 0.92] | 6 studies · 902 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All‐cause event‐free survival Nurse‐led titration vs usual care | RR 0.6 [0.46, 0.77] | 3 studies · 370 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Proportion reaching target dose of medications Nurse‐led titration vs usual care | RR 1.99 [1.61, 2.47] | 5 studies · 966 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |