ReviewCardiac failure review2026
Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Use in Contemporary Heart Failure Care.
Review in Cardiac failure review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) continues to challenge clinicians worldwide, not only because of its high morbidity and mortality, but also due to the persistent difficulty in translating therapeutic advances into routine care. Despite the availability of effective treatments, data show striking gaps in the optimal use of guideline-directed medical therapy. Among the four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapy, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) remain the least prescribed. This underuse is concerning considering the evidence demonstrating consistent benefits of MRAs across different HF phenotypes. In this review, we revisit the role of MRAs across the spectrum of HF. We summarise the supporting evidence, discuss their mechanisms of action and provide practical guidance on patient eligibility and initiation strategies. In addition, we address common barriers that often limit their use. By combining mechanistic insights, trial evidence and pragmatic recommendations, this review aims to facilitate broader and earlier use of MRAs, thereby helping to close a major gap in the implementation of evidence-based HF care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.