The effect of ivabradine therapy on heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Assessing Clinical and Haemodynamic Outcomes of Ivabradine in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Patients

BACKGROUND

Ivabradine, a pure bradycardic agent, can be given to heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients with a sinus rhythm of ≥70 bpm on a maximum beta blocker dose, or when beta blockers are contraindicated. This study aimed to see how ivabradine affects the clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of HFrEF patients.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenMD, ProQuest, PubMed, and ScienceDirect for potential articles. All relevant data were extracted. For all pooled effects, the random effect model was applied.

RESULTS

A total of 18,972 heart failure (HF) patients from nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were involved in this study. Ivabradine decreased the risk of HF mortality (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.98; p=0.03) and HF hospitalisation (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p=0.03). Ivabradine was related to a greater reduction in heart rate (MD -12.21; 95% CI -15.47 - -8.96; p<0.01) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement (MD 3.24; 95% CI 2.17-4.31; p <0.01) compared with placebo. Asymptomatic bradycardia (RR 4.25; 95% CI 3.36-5.39; p<0.01) and symptomatic bradycardia (RR 3.99; 95% CI 3.17-5.03; p<0.01) were higher in the ivabradine group.

CONCLUSION

Ivabradine can reduce the risk of HF mortality and HF hospitalisation in HFrEF patients. Ivabradine also effectively reduces resting heart rate and improves LVEF. However, ivabradine is associated with a greater risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic bradycardia.

The effect of ivabradine therapy on dilated cardiomyopathy patients with congestive heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Ivabradine improves cardiac function in patients with heart failure, but its effect on dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the efficacy and potential mechanisms of ivabradine's effect on cardiac function and prognosis in patients with DCM.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and four registers through September 28, 2022. All controlled trials of ivabradine for the treatment of DCM with congestive heart failure were included. Articles were limited to English, with the full text and necessary data available. We performed random- or fixed effects meta-analyses for all included outcome measures and compared the effect sizes for outcomes in patients treated with and without ivabradine. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2.0).

Findings

Five trials with 357 participants were included. The pooled risk ratio was 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.18, 1.25)] for all-cause mortality and 0.38 [95% CI (0.12, 1.23)] for cardiac mortality. The pooled mean difference was -15.95 [95% CI (-19.97, -11.92)] for resting heart rate, 3.96 [95% CI (0.99, 6.93)] for systolic blood pressure, 2.93 [95% CI (2.09, 3.77)] for left ventricular ejection fraction, -5.90 [95% CI (-9.36, -2.44)] for left ventricular end-systolic diameter, -3.41 [95% CI (-5.24, -1.58)] for left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, -0.81 [95% CI (-1.00, -0.62)] for left ventricular end-systolic volume, -0.67 [95% CI (-0.86, -0.48)] for left ventricular end-diastolic volume, -11.01 [95% CI (-19.66, -2.35)] for Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score, and -0.52 [95% CI (-0.73, -0.31)] for New York Heart Association class.

Interpretation

Ivabradine reduces heart rate and ventricular volume, and improves cardiac function in patients with DCM, but showed no significant effect on the prognosis of patients.

Ivabradine in patients with heart failure: a systematic literature review

Background: Heart failure is a chronic disease linked with significant morbidity and mortality, and uncontrolled resting heart rate is a risk factor for adverse outcomes. This systematic literature review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of ivabradine in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods: We searched electronic databases from their inception to July 2021 to include studies that reported on efficacy, safety, or PROs of ivabradine in patients with HFrEF. Results: Of 1947 records screened, 51 RCTs and 6 observational studies were identified. Ivabradine on top of background therapy demonstrated a significant reduction in composite outcomes including hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. In addition, observational studies suggested that ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in mortality. Across all studies, ivabradine use on top of background therapy was associated with greater reductions in heart rate, improved EF, and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) and comparable risk of total adverse events compared to those treated with background therapy alone. Conclusions: Ivabradine on top of background therapy is beneficial for heart rate, hospitalization risk for HF, mortality, EF, and patients' QoL. Moreover, these benefits were achieved with no significant increase in the overall risk of total adverse events.

Optimal effectiveness of heart failure management - an umbrella review of meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce (re)hospitalizations in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a major health concern, which accounts for 1-2% of all hospital admissions. Nevertheless, there remains a knowledge gap concerning which interventions contribute to effective prevention of HF (re)hospitalization. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to systematically review meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, and Medline to identify eligible studies published in the English language in the past 10 years. Primarily, to synthesize the meta-analyzed data, a best-evidence synthesis was used in which meta-analyses were classified based on level of validity. Secondarily, all unique RCTS were extracted from the meta-analyses and examined. A total of 44 meta-analyses were included which encompassed 186 unique RCTs. Strong or moderate evidence suggested that catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy, cardiac rehabilitation, telemonitoring, and RAAS inhibitors could reduce (re)hospitalization. Additionally, limited evidence suggested that multidisciplinary clinic or self-management promotion programs, beta-blockers, statins, and mitral valve therapy could reduce HF hospitalization. No, or conflicting evidence was found for the effects of cell therapy or anticoagulation. This umbrella review highlights different levels of evidence regarding the effectiveness of several interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. It could guide future guideline development in optimizing care pathways for heart failure patients.

Clinical comparative study assessing the effect of ivabradine on neopterin and NT-Pro BNP against standard treatment in chronic heart failure patients

Purpose

Heart rate reduction (HR) is a cornerstone in heart failure therapy as it improves patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate short-term effect of ivabradine on NT-Pro BNP and neopterin in heart failure patients and assess the association between HR and these biomarkers.

Methods

Sixty patients on standard heart failure therapy were randomly allocated into ivabradine group (n = 30) and non-ivabradine group (n = 30). Ivabradine 5 mg twice daily was given for 3 months. Lipid profile and kidney functions were performed and blood samples for NT-Pro BNP and neopterin were analysed at baseline and after 3 months of intervention in both groups.

Results

There was a significant improvement in NYHA class in ivabradine group (p < 0.001). Ejection fraction was improved in ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups after intervention (p < 0.001), with a greater improvement in ivabradine group (p = 0.026). Heart rate was reduced in ivabradine group (p < 0.001) and non-ivabradine group (p < 0.001) yet greater reduction was seen in ivabradine group (p < 0.001). Serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen were reduced in ivabradine group (Scr: p = 0.001, BUN: p = 0.001). NT-Pro BNP and neopterin levels significantly decreased in ivabradine group (NT-Pro BNP: p < 0.001, neopterin p < 0.001). Significant positive correlation was found between HR and biomarker levels after intervention (NT-Pro BNP: r = 0.475, p < 0.001, neopterin: r = 0.384, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Ivabradine therapy reduced levels of both biomarkers which correlated well with HR. Biomarker levels might provide a tool for assessing ivabradine effectiveness in HF.

Trial registration

Date: June 26, 2020. Identifier: NCT04448899. Link: Ivabradine in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure—Full Text View—ClinicalTrials.gov.

Effect of ivabradine in heart failure: a meta-analysis of heart failure patients with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction

In clinical trials of heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), ivabradine seemed to be an effective heart rate lowering agent associated with lower risk of cardiovascular death. In contrast, ivabradine failed to improve cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) despite the significant effect on heart rate. This meta-analysis is the first to compare the effects of ivabradine on heart rate and mortality parameters in HFpEF versus HFrEF. We screened three databases: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The outcomes of these studies were mortality, reduction in heart rate, and left ventricular function improvement. We compared the efficacy of ivabradine treatment in HFpEF versus HFrEF. Heart rate analysis of pooled data showed decrease in both HFrEF (-17.646 beats/min) and HFpEF (-11.434 beats/min), and a tendency to have stronger bradycardic effect in HFrEF (p = 0.094) in randomized clinical trials. Left ventricular ejection fraction analysis revealed significant improvement in HFrEF (5.936, 95% CI: [4.199-7.672], p < 0.001) when compared with placebo (p < 0.001). We found that ivabradine significantly improves left ventricular performance in HFrEF, at the same time it exerts a tendency to have improved bradycardic effect in HFrEF. These disparate effects of ivabradine and the higher prevalence of non-cardiac comorbidities in HFpEF may explain the observed beneficial effects in HFrEF and the unchanged outcomes in HFpEF patients after ivabradine treatment.

Ivabradine: A Potential Therapeutic for Children With Refractory SVT

Background: In April 2015, ivabradine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure (HF). The use of this medication has been linked with improved clinical outcomes and reduced rates of hospitalization in patients with symptomatic HF and a baseline heart rate of 70 bpm and above. Nonetheless, little is known about the use of ivabradine in pediatric patients with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). This use is not well-studied and is only endorsed by a few case reports and case series.

Aim: This study discusses the off-label utilization of ivabradine in pediatric patients with SVT, and highlights its efficacy in treating treatment-resistant (refractory) SVT.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center observational study involving pediatric patients with SVT treated at our center between January 2016 and October 2020. We identified the total number of patients with SVT, and the number of patients with refractory SVT treated with Ivabradine. Similarly, we performed a thorough review of the databases of PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar to compare the clinical course of our patients to those described in the literature.

Results: Between January 2016 and October 2020, 79 pediatric patients with SVT were seen and treated at our center. A treatment-resistant SVT was noted only in three patients (4%). Ivabradine was used in these patients as a single or combined therapy. The rest (96%) were successfully treated with conventional anti-arrhythmics such as β-blockers, flecainide, and other approved medications. In the ivabradine group, successful reversal to sinus rhythm was achieved in two of the three patients (66%), one patient was treated with a combination therapy of amiodarone and ivabradine, and the other patient was treated only with ivabradine.

Conclusion: Overall, promissory results are associated with the use of ivabradine in pediatric patients with refractory SVT. Ivabradine appears to be a safe and well-tolerated medication that can induce adequate suppression of SVT, complete reversal to sinus rhythm, and effective enhancement of left ventricular function.

Effects of Ivabradine on Cardiac Remodeling in Patients With Stable Symptomatic Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Ivabradine reduces heart rate (HR) in patients with heart failure (HF). However, its effect on cardiac remodeling is not obvious. The goal of this study was to explore the extra effect of ivabradine on cardiac remodeling in patients with HF.

METHODS

We searched PubMed from database inception to January 31, 2020, Cochrane and Embase from database inception to February 2, 2020, and Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to February 3, 2020, for randomized controlled trials on ivabradine treatments in patients with stable symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 45%, and resting HR ≥ 60 beats/min in sinus rhythm. We pooled the mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences and their 95% CIs. An inverse variance was used to combine data. Fixed- or random-effects models were used to outline the outcomes based on heterogeneity levels. We assessed the heterogeneity among studies according to the I² statistic. A sensitivity analysis for select results was performed to assess the robustness of the outcomes.

FINDINGS

Of 2277 trials, 9 trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 1523 patients were enrolled in 9 studies. There were 796 participants in the ivabradine group and 727 participants in the control group. The duration of follow-up ranged from 6 weeks to 19.6 months. The mean (SD) age of the participants was 59.7 (11.2) years, and 1187 participants (77.9%) were men. Therapy with ivabradine was related to reversing cardiac remodeling with a significant increase in LVEF (MD = 3.04%; 95% CI, 2.07%-4.00%; p < 0.001), decrease in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) (MD = -7.30 mL/m²; 95% CI, -12.94 to -1.66 mL/m²; p = 0.01), and reduction in the left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) (MD = -7.27 mL/m²; 95% CI, -14.04 to -0.50 mL/m²; p = 0.04). In the subgroup of enrolled patients with a resting HR of ≥70 beats/min, greater progress in LVEF was detected in the ivabradine group (MD = 3.60%; 95% CI, 2.40%-4.81%; p < 0.001), and a higher improvement in LVESVI was identified in the ivabradine group (MD = -11.06 mL/m²; 95% CI, -21.15 to -0.98 mL/m²; p = 0.03).

IMPLICATIONS

In patients with stable symptomatic HF, LVEF <45%, and resting HR ≥ 60 beats/min in sinus rhythm, ivabradine use was associated with reversing cardiac remodeling with a significant increase in LVEF, a decrease in LVESVI, and a reduction in LVEDVI.

Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure is one of the most common medical conditions, affecting more than 23 million people worldwide. Despite established guideline-based, multidrug pharmacotherapy, chronic heart failure is still the cause of frequent hospitalisation, and about 50% die within five years of diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in individuals with chronic heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in March 2020. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any time or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in which adult participants diagnosed with chronic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either ivabradine or placebo/usual care/no treatment. We distinguished between type of heart failure (heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction) as well as between duration of ivabradine treatment (short term (< 6 months) or long term (≥ 6 months)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and checked data for accuracy. We calculated risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We completed a comprehensive 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were: mortality from cardiovascular causes; quality of life; time to first hospitalisation for heart failure during follow-up; and number of days spent in hospital due to heart failure during follow-up. Our secondary endpoints were: rate of serious adverse events; exercise capacity; and economic costs (narrative report). We assessed the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies (76 reports) involving a total of 19,628 participants (mean age 60.76 years, 69% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in trial design (type of heart failure) and outcome reporting and measurement. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high across the included studies, with insufficient detail provided to inform judgement in several cases. We were able to perform two meta-analyses focusing on participants with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and long-term ivabradine treatment. There was evidence of no difference between ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment for mortality from cardiovascular causes (RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.11; 3 studies; 17,676 participants; I2 = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found evidence of no difference in rate of serious adverse events amongst HFrEF participants randomised to receive long-term ivabradine compared with those randomised to placebo, usual care, or no treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00; 2 studies; 17,399 participants; I2 = 12%; moderate-certainty evidence). We were not able to perform meta-analysis for all other outcomes, and have low confidence in the findings based on the individual studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of no difference in cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events between long-term treatment with ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment in participants with heart failure with HFrEF. Nevertheless, due to indirectness (male predominance), the certainty of the available evidence is rated as moderate.

Efficacy and Safety of Ivabradine Once-Daily Prolonged-Release versus Twice-Daily Immediate-Release Formulation in Patients with Stable Chronic Heart Failure with Systolic Dysfunction: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Non-Inferiority (PROFICIENT) Study

Introduction

Dosing frequency is an important factor influencing medication compliance in patients with heart failure (HF), which in turn is imperative in achieving the desired therapeutic outcome. Here we assessed the efficacy and safety of ivabradine prolonged-release (PR) once-daily (test) vs. ivabradine immediate-release (IR) twice-daily (reference) formulations in patients with stable chronic HF with systolic dysfunction.

Methods

Patients with sinus rhythm and heart rate (HR) ≥ 50 bpm, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% (HF with reduced ejection fraction), on guideline-based standard care, receiving a stable dose of ivabradine IR 5/7.5 mg twice daily for ≥ 1 month were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority study. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to ivabradine PR (10 mg/15 mg) based on the ivabradine IR dosage or continued ivabradine IR (5 mg/7.5 mg). The primary endpoint was change in resting ECG HR from baseline to the end of 3 months, assessed by 12-lead ECG. Safety assessments and 24-h Holter HR monitoring (in a subgroup of patients) were also performed. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the test and reference was less than the margin of 6.5 bpm in the per-protocol set.

Results

A total of 169 out of 180 randomized patients (93.9%) completed the study (PR = 84; IR = 85). The least-square mean (standard error [SE]) for change in HR from baseline to 3 months was 0.76 (1.188; 95% CI −1.59:3.11) in ivabradine PR vs. ivabradine IR, which was within the pre-specified margin of 6.5 bpm, confirming the non-inferiority of ivabradine PR. The change from baseline to 3 months was comparable between the treatment groups for 24-h Holter ECG monitoring (p = 0.3701), mean HR awake (p = 0.3423), and mean HR asleep (p = 0.1501). Thirty-nine treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported; the majority in both groups were of mild or moderate severity and were subsequently resolved. Seven serious adverse events were reported (ivabradine PR = 2; ivabradine IR = 5), of which one was fatal (ivabradine IR group). The bradycardia events reported were comparable between groups.

Conclusion

Ivabradine PR was found to be non-inferior to ivabradine IR in the management of patients with stable CHF, with a comparable safety profile. Once-daily ivabradine PR effectively maintained the HR in patients shifted from the ivabradine IR twice-daily regimen, and thus may aid in improving treatment compliance.

Trial Registration

CTRI/2018/04/013464 (Trial Registered Prospectively on 24/04/2018)

Effect of ivabradine on major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analyses

BACKGROUND

Ivabradine lowers heart rate (HR) without affecting contractility or vascular tone. It is licensed for HR control in chronic heart diseases. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to examine whether ivabradine could decrease major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for RCTs. Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed if at least three trials or 100 patients were available. Results are reported as weighted mean difference (WMD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Trial sequential analyses were performed to estimate the sample size needed to reach definitive conclusions of efficacy or futility.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs (n=1497 patients). We found no evidence of an impact of ivabradine on MACE (three RCTs, 819 patients; OR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.11) or mortality (10 RCTs, 1356 patients; OR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.63-1.82), but sample sizes were not reached to allow definitive conclusions. Compared with placebo or standard care, ivabradine reduced HR (eight RCTs, 464 patients; WMD, -9.5 beats min^-1; 95% CI, -13.3 to -5.8). Risk of bradycardia was not different between ivabradine and control (five RCTs, 434 patients; OR=1.2; 95% CI, 0.60-2.38). Risk of bias was overall high or unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine reduces HR compared with placebo or standard care. The effect on MACE or mortality in acute care remains unclear. Further RCTs powered to detect changes in clinically relevant outcomes are warranted.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42018086109.

Effect of Ivabradine on Left Ventricular Diastolic Function, Exercise Tolerance and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Ivabradine is a heart rate-lowering drug that selectively inhibits the funny (If) current of the sinoatrial node. It is currently recommended in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in sinus rhythm and a heart rate of ≥ 70 beats per minute (bpm) at rest. To investigate whether ivabradine has an effect on diastolic dysfunction, exercise tolerance and quality of life (QOL), we conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials for studies on the effect of ivabradine on left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, exercise tolerance, QOL, readmission for worsening HF and mortality in both patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HFrEF.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs with 881 patients met the inclusion criteria. According to the pooled analysis, for the HFpEF subgroup, treatment with ivabradine resulted in a decrease in early diastolic mitral inflow to late diastolic flow ratio (E/A) (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.99, -0.07; P < 0.000) and increase in peak oxygen uptake during exercise (VO2) (SMD: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.35, 0.45; P < 0.00; I2 = 95.1%). Similar effect was seen in the HFrEF subgroup with decrease in E/A ratio (SMD: -0.33; 95% CI: -0.59, -0.06; P < 0.000) and early diastolic mitral inflow to annular velocity ratio (E/e') (SMD: -1.01; 95% CI: -1.49, -0.54; P < 0.012). Ivabradine therapy increased peak VO2 and 6-min walk test (6MWT) in HFrEF patients (SMD: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.35, 1.32; P < 0.00; I2 = 97.5% and SMD: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82, 1.41; P < 0.000, respectively). There was also significant reduction in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score (SMD: -0.68; 95% CI: -0.91, -0.45; P < 0.000). However, there was no significant difference in readmission for worsening HF and all-cause mortality between ivabradine and control (risk ratio (RR): 1.44; 95% CI: 0.73, 2.16; P < 0.148 and RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.19, 1.33; P < 0.907, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine therapy is associated with improved LV diastolic function, increases exercise tolerance and hence QOL, but it has no significant effect on readmission for worsening HF and all-cause mortality.