Prognostic implications of left ventricular global longitudinal strain in heart failure patients with narrow QRS complex treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: a subanalysis of the randomized EchoCRT trial

Aim

Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) reflects LV systolic function and correlates inversely with the extent of LV myocardial scar and fibrosis. The present subanalysis of the Echocardiography Guided CRT trial investigated the prognostic value of LV GLS in patients with narrow QRS complex.

Methods and results

Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) was measured on the apical 2-, 4- and 3-chamber views using speckle tracking analysis. Measurement of baseline LV GLS was feasible in 755 patients (374 with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-ON and 381 with CRT-OFF). The median value of LV GLS in the overall population was 7.9%, interquartile range 6.2-10.1%. After a mean follow-up period of 19.4 months, 95 patients in the CRT-OFF group and 111 in the CRT-ON group reached the combined primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Each 1% absolute unit decrease in LV GLS was independently associated with 11% increase in the risk to reach the primary endpoint (Hazard ratio 1.11; 95% confidence interval 95% 1.04-1.17, P < 0.001), after adjusting for ischaemic cardiomyopathy and randomization treatment among other clinically relevant variables. When categorizing patients according to quartiles of LV GLS, the primary endpoint occurred more frequently in patients in the lowest quartile (<6.2%) treated with CRT-ON vs. CRT-OFF (45.6% vs. 28.7%, P = 0.009) whereas, no differences were observed in patients with LV GLS ≥6.2% treated with CRT-OFF vs. CRT-ON (23.7% vs. 24.5%, respectively; P  = 0.62).

Conclusion

Low LV GLS is associated with poor outcome in heart failure patients with QRS width <130 ms, independent of randomization to CRT or not. Importantly, in the group of patients with the lowest LV GLS quartile, CRT may have a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes.

Randomised clinical trial: gastrointestinal events in arthritis patients treated with celecoxib, ibuprofen or naproxen in the PRECISION trial

AIM

To evaluate GI safety of celecoxib compared with 2 nonselective (ns) NSAIDs, as a secondary objective of a large trial examining multiorgan safety.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind controlled trial analysed 24 081 patients. Osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis patients, needing ongoing NSAID treatment, were randomised to receive celecoxib 100-200 mg b.d., ibuprofen 600-800 mg t.d.s. or naproxen 375-500 mg b.d. plus esomeprazole, and low-dose aspirin or corticosteroids if already prescribed. Clinically significant GI events (CSGIE-bleeding, obstruction, perforation events from stomach downwards or symptomatic ulcers) and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) were adjudicated blindly.

RESULTS

Mean treatment and follow-up durations were 20.3 and 34.1 months. While on treatment or 30 days after, CSGIE occurred in 0.34%, 0.74% and 0.66% taking celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen. Hazard ratios (HR) were 0.43 (95% CI 0.27-0.68, P = 0.0003) celecoxib vs ibuprofen and 0.51 (0.32-0.81, P = 0.004) vs naproxen. There was also less IDA on celecoxib: HR 0.43 (0.27-0.68, P = 0.0003) vs ibuprofen; 0.40 (0.25-0.62, P < 0.0001) vs naproxen. Even taken with low-dose aspirin, fewer CSGIE occurred on celecoxib than ibuprofen (HR 0.52 [0.29-0.94], P = 0.03), and less IDA vs naproxen (0.42 [0.23-0.77, P = 0.005]). Corticosteroid use increased total GI events and CSGIE. H. pylori serological status had no influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthritis patients taking NSAIDs plus esomeprazole have infrequent clinically significant gastrointestinal events. Co-prescribed with esomeprazole, celecoxib has better overall GI safety than ibuprofen or naproxen at these doses, despite treatment with low-dose aspirin or corticosteroids.

Interaction of Left Ventricular Size and Sex on Outcome of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Among Patients With a Narrow QRS Duration in the EchoCRT Trial

BACKGROUND

Longer QRS duration (QRSd) improves, but increased left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) reduces, efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). QRSd/LVEDV ratios differ between sexes. We hypothesized that in the EchoCRT (Echocardiography Guided Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial enrolling patients with heart failure with QRSd <130 ms, those with larger LVEDV would deteriorate but those with the highest QRSd/LVEDV would improve with CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Primary outcome in patients (n=787, 72% men, 93% New York Heart Association class III, QRSd <130 ms, LV ejection fraction ≤35%, LV dilation and dyssynchrony) randomized to CRT-ON or CRT-OFF and followed up for 19 months was compared according to LVEDV (height indexed) or QRSd/LVEDV ratio, in multivariable analysis. Structural remodeling was assessed echocardiographically 6 months after implantation. Patients with baseline LVEDV higher than or equal to median worsened with CRT (death/heart failure hospitalization: CRT-ON versus CRT-OFF, 35.2% versus 24.5% [hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.42; P=0.012]), but those with LVEDV lower than median remained unaffected. Patients with the highest QRSd/LVEDV ratio improved with CRT (death/heart failure hospitalization in top quartile: 20.9% in CRT-ON [n=91] versus 28.3% in CRT-OFF [n=106] [hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-1.24; P=0.188], versus the remaining quartiles: 31.7% in CRT-ON [n=300] versus 24.8% in CRT-OFF [n=290] [hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-2.02; P=0.016], test for interaction P=0.046). QRSd and dyssynchrony were similar between groups. The 3-way test for interaction indicated no sex-specific effects. However, numerically, men with LVEDV higher than or equal to median accounted for worse outcomes of CRT-ON. Women, with the highest QRSd/LVEDV ratio exhibited significant reverse remodeling.

CONCLUSION

CRT has opposite effects among patients with heart failure with QRSd <130 ms according to LV size: worsening outcomes in patients with larger LV, but inducing beneficial effects in those with smaller LV.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00683696.

Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat or Allopurinol in Patients with Gout

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular risk is increased in patients with gout. We compared cardiovascular outcomes associated with febuxostat, a nonpurine xanthine oxidase inhibitor, with those associated with allopurinol, a purine base analogue xanthine oxidase inhibitor, in patients with gout and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority trial involving patients with gout and cardiovascular disease; patients were randomly assigned to receive febuxostat or allopurinol and were stratified according to kidney function. The trial had a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio for the primary end point (a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina with urgent revascularization).

RESULTS

In total, 6190 patients underwent randomization, received febuxostat or allopurinol, and were followed for a median of 32 months (maximum, 85 months). The trial regimen was discontinued in 56.6% of patients, and 45.0% discontinued follow-up. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, a primary end-point event occurred in 335 patients (10.8%) in the febuxostat group and in 321 patients (10.4%) in the allopurinol group (hazard ratio, 1.03; upper limit of the one-sided 98.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.23; P=0.002 for noninferiority). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were higher in the febuxostat group than in the allopurinol group (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.47]; hazard ratio for cardiovascular death, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.73]). The results with regard to the primary end point and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the analysis of events that occurred while patients were being treated were similar to the results in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with gout and major cardiovascular coexisting conditions, febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol with respect to rates of adverse cardiovascular events. All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were higher with febuxostat than with allopurinol. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas; CARES ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01101035 .).

The Risk of Major NSAID Toxicity with Celecoxib, Ibuprofen, or Naproxen: A Secondary Analysis of the PRECISION Trial

BACKGROUND

The relative safety of long-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is unclear. Patients and providers are interested in an integrated view of risk . We examined the risk of major nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity in the PRECISION trial.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of a double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial enrolling 24,081 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis at moderate or high cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized to receive celecoxib 100 to 200 mg twice daily, ibuprofen 600 to 800 mg thrice daily, or naproxen 375 to 500 mg twice daily. All patients were provided with a proton pump inhibitor. The outcome was major nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug toxicity, including time to first occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events, important gastrointestinal events, renal events, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 4.1% of subjects sustained any major toxicity in the celecoxib arm, 4.8% in the naproxen arm, and 5.3% in the ibuprofen arm. Analyses adjusted for aspirin use and geographic region found that subjects in the naproxen arm had a 20% (95% CI 4-39) higher risk of major toxicity than celecoxib users and that 38% (95% CI 19-59) higher risk. These risks translate into numbers needed to harm of 135 (95% CI, 72-971) for naproxen and 82 (95% CI, 53-173) for ibuprofen, both compared with celecoxib.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with symptomatic arthritis who had moderate to high risk of cardiovascular events, approximately 1 in 20 experienced a major toxicity over 1 to 2 years. Patients using naproxen or ibuprofen experienced significantly higher risk of major toxicity than those using celecoxib.

Impact of Beta-Blockade on Cardiac Events in Patients with Chronic Severe Nonischemic Mitral Regurgitation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of beta-blockade on cardiac events among patients with initially asymptomatic chronic severe nonischemic mitral valve regurgitation (MR).

METHODS

Data from 52 consecutive patients in our prospective natural history study of isolated chronic severe nonischemic MR were assessed post hoc over 19 years to examine the relation of chronic beta-blockade use to subsequent cardiac events (death or indications for mitral valve surgery, MVS). At entry, all patients were free of surgical indications; 9 received beta-blockers. Cardiac event rate differences were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier log rank comparison.

RESULTS

During follow-up, cardiac events included sudden death (1), heart failure (8), atrial fibrillation (6), left ventricular dimensions at systole ≥4.5 cm (11), left ventricular ejection fraction <60% (6), right ventricular ejection fraction <35% (2), and a combination of cardiac events (7). The cardiac event risk was 4-fold higher among patients receiving beta-blockers (average annual risk = 60.6%) versus those not receiving beta-blockers (average annual risk = 15.2%; p = 0.001). These effects remained statistically significant (p = 0.005) when analysis was adjusted for other baseline covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blockade appears to confer an increased risk of sudden cardiac death or indications for MVS among patients with chronic severe nonischemic MR. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Duration of chronic heart failure affects outcomes with preserved effects of heart rate reduction with ivabradine: findings from SHIFT

AIMS

In heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm, heart rate reduction with ivabradine reduces the composite incidence of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

It is unclear whether the duration of HF prior to therapy independently affects outcomes and whether it modifies the effect of heart rate reduction. In SHIFT, 6505 patients with chronic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤35%), in sinus rhythm, heart rate of ≥70 b.p.m., treated with guideline-recommended therapies, were randomized to placebo or ivabradine. Outcomes and the treatment effect of ivabradine in patients with different durations of HF were examined. Prior to randomization, 1416 ivabradine and 1459 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 weeks and <1.5 years; 836 ivabradine and 806 placebo patients had HF duration of 1.5 years to <4 years, and 989 ivabradine and 999 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 years. Patients with longer duration of HF were older (62.5 years vs. 59.0 years; P < 0.0001), had more severe disease (New York Heart Association classes III/IV in 56% vs. 44.9%; P < 0.0001) and greater incidences of co-morbidities [myocardial infarction: 62.9% vs. 49.4% (P < 0.0001); renal dysfunction: 31.5% vs. 21.5% (P < 0.0001); peripheral artery disease: 7.0% vs. 4.8% (P < 0.0001)] compared with patients with a more recent diagnosis. After adjustments, longer HF duration was independently associated with poorer outcome. Effects of ivabradine were independent of HF duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of HF predicts outcome independently of risk indicators such as higher age, greater severity and more co-morbidities. Heart rate reduction with ivabradine improved outcomes independently of HF duration. Thus, HF treatments should be initiated early and it is important to characterize HF populations according to the chronicity of HF in future trials.

Streamlining cardiovascular clinical trials to improve efficiency and generalisability

Controlled trials provide the most valid determination of the efficacy and safety of an intervention, but large cardiovascular clinical trials have become extremely costly and complex, making it difficult to study many important clinical questions. A critical question, and the main objective of this review, is how trials might be simplified while maintaining randomisation to preserve scientific integrity and unbiased efficacy assessments. Experience with alternative approaches is accumulating, specifically with registry-based randomised controlled trials that make use of data already collected. This approach addresses bias concerns while still capitalising on the benefits and efficiencies of a registry. Several completed or ongoing trials illustrate the feasibility of using registry-based controlled trials to answer important questions relevant to daily clinical practice. Randomised trials within healthcare organisation databases may also represent streamlined solutions for some types of investigations, although data quality (endpoint assessment) is likely to be a greater concern in those settings. These approaches are not without challenges, and issues pertaining to informed consent, blinding, data quality and regulatory standards remain to be fully explored. Collaboration among stakeholders is necessary to achieve standards for data management and analysis, to validate large data sources for use in randomised trials, and to re-evaluate ethical standards to encourage research while also ensuring that patients are protected. The rapidly evolving efforts to streamline cardiovascular clinical trials have the potential to lead to major advances in promoting better care and outcomes for patients with cardiovascular disease.

Budget Impact of Adding Ivabradine to Standard of Care in Patients with Chronic Systolic Heart Failure in the United States

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) costs $21 billion annually in direct health care costs, 80% of which is directly attributable to hospitalizations. The SHIFT clinical study demonstrated that ivabradine plus standard of care (SoC) reduced HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared with SoC alone.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budget impact of ivabradine from a U.S. commercial payer perspective.

METHODS

A budget impact model estimated the per-member-per month (PMPM) impact of introducing ivabradine to existing formularies by comparing a reference scenario (SoC) and a new drug scenario (ivabradine + SoC) in hypothetical 1 million-member commercial and Medicare Advantage plans. In both scenarios, U.S. claims data were used for the reference cumulative annual rates of hospitalizations (HF, non-HF cardiovascular [CV], and non-CV), and hospitalization rates were adjusted using SHIFT data. The model controlled for mortality risk using SHIFT and U.S. life table data, and hospitalization costs were obtained from U.S. claims data: HF-related = $37,507; non-HF CV = $28,951; and non-CV = $17,904. The annualized wholesale acquisition cost of ivabradine was $4,500, with baseline use for this new drug at 2%, increasing 2% per year.

RESULTS

Based on the approved U.S. indication, approximately 2,000 commercially insured patients from a 1 million-member commercial plan were eligible to receive ivabradine. Ivabradine resulted in a PMPM cost savings of $0.01 and $0.04 in years 1 and 3 of the core model, respectively. After including the acquisition price for ivabradine, the model showed a decrease in total costs in the commercial ($991,256 and $474,499, respectively) and Medicare populations ($13,849,262 and $4,280,291, respectively) in year 1. This decrease was driven by ivabradine's reduction in hospitalization rates. For the core model, the estimated pharmacy-only PMPM in year 1 was $0.01 for the commercial population and $0.24 for the Medicare Advantage population.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ivabradine to SoC led to lower average annual treatment costs. The negative PMPM budget impact indicates that ivabradine is an affordable option for U.S. payers.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Amgen. Patel is employed by Amgen; Kielhorn was employed by Amgen at the time of the study but is no longer affiliated with Amgen. Borer, Böhm, Ford, and Komajda have received scientific support, consultative fees, and/or speakers honoraria from Servier and Amgen in connection with SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. Borer also has received consultative fees from Celladon, Pfizer, ARMGO, Cardiorentis, Novartis, and Takeda USA. Kansal, Dorman, Krotneva, and Zheng are employees of Evidera, which was hired to assist with this study. Tavazzi has received research grants and consultation fees from Servier in connection with this study and has had advisory board memberships with Boston Scientific, Servier, Cardiorentis, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, and CVie Therapeutics. Study concept and design were contributed by Dorman and Keilhorn, along with the other authors. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer oversaw collection of the data. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer (along with Karl Swedberg) formed the Executive Committee of SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. The manuscript was written by Kansal, along with the other authors, and revised by Borer and Patel, with assistance from the other authors.

Financial impact of ivabradine on reducing heart failure penalties under the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program

OBJECTIVE

The introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) has led to renewed interest in developing strategies to reduce 30 day readmissions among patients with heart failure (HF). In this study, a model was developed to investigate whether the addition of ivabradine to a standard-of-care (SoC) treatment regimen for patients with HF would reduce HRRP penalties incurred by a hypothetical hospital with excess 30 day readmissions.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A model using a Monte Carlo simulation framework was developed. Model inputs included national hospital characteristics, hospital-specific characteristics, and the ivabradine treatment effect as quantified by a post hoc analysis of the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the I_f inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT).

RESULTS

The model computed an 83% reduction in HF readmission penalty payments in a hypothetical hospital with a readmission rate of 22.95% (excess readmission ratio = 1.056 over the national average readmission rate of 21.73%), translating into net savings of $44,016. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the readmission penalty is affected by the specific characteristics of the hospital, including the readmission rate, size of the ivabradine-eligible population, and ivabradine utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that the addition of ivabradine to an SoC treatment regimen for patients with HF may lead to a reduction in the penalties incurred by hospitals under the HRRP. This highlights the role ivabradine can play as part of a wider effort to optimize the care of patients with HF.

Cardiovascular Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen, or Ibuprofen for Arthritis

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, as compared with nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), remains uncertain.

METHODS

Patients who required NSAIDs for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The goal of the trial was to assess the noninferiority of celecoxib with regard to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Noninferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 97.5% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the intention-to-treat population and of 1.40 or lower in the on-treatment population. Gastrointestinal and renal outcomes were also adjudicated.

RESULTS

A total of 24,081 patients were randomly assigned to the celecoxib group (mean [±SD] daily dose, 209±37 mg), the naproxen group (852±103 mg), or the ibuprofen group (2045±246 mg) for a mean treatment duration of 20.3±16.0 months and a mean follow-up period of 34.1±13.4 months. During the trial, 68.8% of the patients stopped taking the study drug, and 27.4% of the patients discontinued follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analyses, a primary outcome event occurred in 188 patients in the celecoxib group (2.3%), 201 patients in the naproxen group (2.5%), and 218 patients in the ibuprofen group (2.7%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.13; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). In the on-treatment analysis, a primary outcome event occurred in 134 patients in the celecoxib group (1.7%), 144 patients in the naproxen group (1.8%), and 155 patients in the ibuprofen group (1.9%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.15; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.02; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). The risk of gastrointestinal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.01) or ibuprofen (P=0.002); the risk of renal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with ibuprofen (P=0.004) but was not significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

At moderate doses, celecoxib was found to be noninferior to ibuprofen or naproxen with regard to cardiovascular safety. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00346216 .).

Benefits of Heart Rate Slowing With Ivabradine in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease

Heart rate (HR) is a risk factor in patients with chronic systolic heart failure (HF) that, when reduced, provides outcome benefits. It is also a target for angina pectoris prevention and a risk marker in chronic coronary artery disease without HF. HR can be reduced by drugs; however, among those used clinically, only ivabradine reduces HR directly in the sinoatrial nodal cells without other known effects on the cardiovascular system. This review provides current information regarding the safety and efficacy of HR reduction with ivabradine in clinical studies involving >36,000 patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease and >6,500 patients with systolic HF. The largest trials, Morbidity-Mortality Evaluation of the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients With Coronary Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease, showed no effect on outcomes. The Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the I_f Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial, a randomized controlled trial in >6,500 patients with HF, revealed marked and significant HR-mediated reduction in cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalizations while improving quality of life and left ventricular mechanical function after treatment with ivabradine. The adverse effects of ivabradine predominantly included bradycardia and atrial fibrillation (both uncommon) and ocular flashing scotomata (phosphenes) but otherwise were similar to placebo. In conclusion, ivabradine improves outcomes in patients with systolic HF; rates of overall adverse events are similar to placebo.

Efficacy Profile of Ivabradine in Patients with Heart Failure plus Angina Pectoris

Objectives: In the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), slowing of the heart rate with ivabradine reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations among patients with systolic chronic heart failure (CHF). Subsequently, in the Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the If Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (SIGNIFY) slowing of the heart rate in patients without CHF provided no benefit for cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (primary composite end point), with secondary analyses suggesting possible harm in the angina subgroup. Therefore, we examined the impact of ivabradine in the patients with CHF plus angina in SHIFT. Methods: SHIFT enrolled adults with stable, symptomatic CHF, a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and a sinus rhythm with a resting heart rate ≥70 bpm. Outcomes were the SHIFT and SIGNIFY primary composite end points and their components. Results: Of 6,505 patients in SHIFT, 2,220 (34%) reported angina at randomization. Ivabradine numerically, but not significantly, reduced the SIGNIFY primary composite end point by 8, 11 and 11% in the SHIFT angina subgroup, nonangina subgroup and overall population, respectively. Ivabradine also reduced the SHIFT primary composite end point in all 3 subgroups. Conclusions: In SHIFT, ivabradine showed consistent reduction of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CHF; similar results were seen in the subgroup of SHIFT patients with angina.

Misconceptions and Facts About Mitral Regurgitation

Mitral regurgitation is a common heart valve disease. It is defined to be primary when it results from the pathology of the mitral valve apparatus itself and secondary when it is caused by distortion of the architecture or function of the left ventricle. Although the diagnosis and management of mitral regurgitation rely heavily on echocardiography, one should bear in mind the caveats and shortcomings of such an approach. Clinical decision making commonly focuses on the indications for surgery, but it is complex and mandates precise assessment of the mitral pathology, symptom status of the patient, and ventricular performance (right and left) among other descriptors. It is important for healthcare providers at all levels to be familiar with the clinical picture, diagnosis, disease course, and management of mitral regurgitation.

Chronic exposure to ivabradine reduces readmissions in the vulnerable phase after hospitalization for worsening systolic heart failure: a post-hoc analysis of SHIFT

AIMS

During the post-discharge phase following a heart failure hospitalization (HFH), patients are at high risk of early readmission despite standard of care therapy. We examined the impact of chronic exposure to ivabradine on early readmissions in patients hospitalized for heart failure during the course of the SHIFT study (Systolic Heart Failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1186 of the 6505 randomized patients experienced at least one HFH during the study, and had a more severe profile than those without HFH. Of these 1186 patients, 334 patients (28%) were rehospitalized within 3 months for any reason, mostly for cardiovascular causes (86%), including HFH (61%). Ivabradine was associated with fewer all-cause hospitalizations at 1 month [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.00, P < 0.05], 2 months (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.98, P = 0.03), and 3 months (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, P = 0.04). A trend for a reduction in cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations was also observed in ivabradine-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate in this post-hoc analysis that chronic exposure to ivabradine reduces the incidence of all-cause hospitalizations during the vulnerable phase after a HFH. Further studies are needed to investigate if in-hospital or early post-discharge initiation of ivabradine could be useful to improve early outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF.