Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42701927

Sodium Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors and Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) may exert antiarrhythmic effects, but their association with ventricular arrhythmias remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the association between SGLT2i use and the risk of ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and sudden cardiac death compared with other antidiabetic medications or no SGLT2i use among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for observational studies published between March 2013 and March 2026. Quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, alongside evaluation of pharmacoepidemiology-specific biases. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies (16 cohort and one nested case-control) were included. Based on ROBINS-I, seven studies had moderate, eight serious, and two critical risks of bias. Eleven studies had at least one pharmacoepidemiology-specific bias. For ventricular arrhythmias, estimates ranged from a protective effect (hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.97) to a potential increased risk (odds ratio 1.87, 95% CI 0.89-3.95) with SGLT2i use. For cardiac arrest, estimates consistently reported a lower risk with estimates that ranged from HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.59-0.68) to HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.82-0.88). The only study on sudden cardiac death reported a potential risk reduction (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: While the association between SGLT2i and ventricular arrhythmias remains inconsistent, the use of SGLT2i likely reduces cardiac arrest and may reduce sudden cardiac death, suggesting a possible protective effect on ventricular arrhythmias among patients with type 2 diabetes.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Wang-Choi Tang, Wanning Wang, Antonios Douros, Oriana Hoi Yun Yu, Robert W Platt, Kristian B Filion. 2026-09-06. Sodium Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors and Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-026-01715-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Identifying and Prioritizing Core Components of Relationship Education Programs: a Case Study of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assisted Systematic Review.

The field of prevention science seeks to identify and implement effective strategies to address social, emotional, and health challenges. A critical aspect of this endeavor is determining the core components of prevention programs that drive positive outcomes. This article presents a case study utilizing artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted systematic review methods to identify key components of healthy marriage and relationship education programs. Given the growing body of research in this domain, AI tools offer a promising means to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of literature reviews. This study employed AI to screen, code, and validate research articles, demonstrating its effectiveness in expediting systematic reviews while maintaining high accuracy in inclusion screening. This case study involved a systematic review of 22,028 resources (identified from PsycINFO, Academic Search Ultimate, and Google) and a final data set of 268 relevant studies. AI screening was integral in effectively conducting multiple rounds of screening. However, findings also highlight challenges in AI-assisted qualitative data abstraction, underscoring the continued need for human expertise in complex coding tasks. The study contributes to the ongoing discourse on integrating AI into prevention science methodologies and offers insights for optimizing AI applications in systematic reviews.

Artificial Intelligence

What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are intended to provide trustworthy evidence synthesis, yet previous iterations of this living review have identified numerous recurring problems in their conduct and reporting. This article presents the third version and second update of the living systematic review examining issues raised across the academic literature. METHODS: Using consistent eligibility criteria and methods from earlier versions, literature searches were updated to May 2025. Eligible meta-research and editorial articles describing problems with systematic reviews were analyzed to identify emerging themes. Additionally, four basic indicators of methodological quality of the included meta-research were presented across review versions. RESULTS: The update included 209 additional articles. Critically low methodological quality and absence of protocols remained among the most frequently reported issues in systematic reviews across disciplines and journals but notably in evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Spin in abstracts and conflicts of interest continued to be common. Apparent improvements in reporting quality were inconsistent, with modest gains in some full-text reporting but persistent deficiencies in abstracts. Authorship diversity of systematic reviews improved in gender representation but remained geographically concentrated in high-income countries, and primary research included in reviews similarly lacked global representativeness. The issue of misalignment between systematic review evidence bases and global burden of disease bring the total number of problems with systematic reviews to 69. Emerging use of automation and artificial intelligence was variably reported. Descriptive comparison of meta-research articles over the three versions of this living review suggests a greater proportion meeting basic quality indicators in more recent updates. CONCLUSION: Across successive updates, problems with systematic reviews remain widespread and consistent rather than isolated. Incremental reporting improvements coexist with persistent concerns about transparency, bias, and representativeness. Future efforts should prioritize evaluating interventions and aligning research incentives to support genuinely trustworthy evidence synthesis.

Humans