Beneficial effects of ivabradine in patients with heart failure, low ejection fraction, and heart rate above 77 b.p.m

Ivabradine could not decrease mitral regurgitation triggered atrial fibrosis and fibrillation compared with carvedilol

BACKGROUND

Ivabradine, a medical treatment for heart failure (HF), reduces heart rate (HR) and prolongs diastolic perfusion time. It is frequently prescribed to patients with HF who have a suboptimal response or intolerance to beta-blockers. Degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) is a valvular heart disease often associated with the development of HF and atrial fibrillation (AF). However, studies comparing the effects of ivabradine and beta-blockers on MR are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the potential therapeutic effects of ivabradine and carvedilol on MR using a rat model.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using a novel echo-guided mini-invasive surgery, MR was created in 12-weeks-old Sprague-Dawley rats. After 2 weeks, the rats were randomized to receive either ivabradine or carvedilol for 4 weeks. Echocardiography was performed at baseline and at two-week intervals. Following haemodynamic studies, postmortem tissues were analysed. Notably, the MR-induced myocardial dysfunction did not improve considerably after treatment with ivabradine or carvedilol. However, in haemodynamic studies, pharmacological therapies, particularly carvedilol, mitigated MR-induced chamber dilatation (end-systolic volume and end-diastolic volume; MR vs. MR + Carvedilol; P < 0.05) and decreased compliance (end-systolic pressure-volume relationship; MR vs. MR + Carvedilol; P < 0.05). Compared with ivabradine, a shorter duration (MR vs. MR + Carvedilol; P < 0.05) and reduced inducibility (MR vs. MR + Carvedilol and MR vs. MR + Ivabradine; P < 0.05) of AF were observed in MR rats treated with carvedilol. Similarly, reduced cardiac fibrosis and apoptosis were observed in the MR rat model in the treatment groups, especially in those treated with carvedilol (MR vs. MR + Carvedilol; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Although both ivabradine and carvedilol, at least in part, mitigated MR-induced chamber dilatation and decreased compliance, carvedilol had a better effect on reversing MR-induced cardiac fibrosis, apoptosis, and arrhythmogenesis than ivabradine. When compared with Ivabradine, MR rats treated with carvedilol exhibited a shorter duration and reduced inducibility of AF, thus providing more effective suppression of HCN4. Further investigations are required to validate our findings.

Cardiac reverse remodelling by imaging parameters with recent changes to guideline medical therapy in heart failure

Recently established heart failure therapies, including sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, and cardiac resynchronization therapy, have led to both clinical and structural improvements. Reverse remodelling describes the structural and functional responses to therapy and has been shown to correlate with patients' clinical response, acting as a biomarker for treatment success. The introduction of these new therapeutic agents in addition to advances in non-invasive cardiac imaging has led to an expansion in the evaluation and the validation of cardiac reverse remodelling. Methods including volumetric changes as well as strain and myocardial work have all been shown to be non-invasive end-points of reverse remodelling, correlating with clinical outcomes. Our review summarizes the current available evidence on reverse remodelling in heart failure by the non-invasive cardiac imaging techniques, in particular transthoracic echocardiography.

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.

Therapeutic Use and Molecular Aspects of Ivabradine in Cardiac Remodeling: A Review

Cardiac remodeling can cause ventricular dysfunction and progress to heart failure, a cardiovascular disease that claims many lives globally. Ivabradine, a funny channel (I_f) inhibitor, is used in patients with chronic heart failure as an adjunct to other heart failure medications. This review aims to gather updated information regarding the therapeutic use and mechanism of action of ivabradine in heart failure. The drug reduces elevated resting heart rate, which is linked to increased morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure. Its use is associated with improved cardiac function, structure, and quality of life in the patients. Ivabradine exerts several pleiotropic effects, including an antiremodeling property, which are independent of its principal heart-rate-reducing effects. Its suppressive effects on cardiac remodeling have been demonstrated in animal models of cardiac remodeling and heart failure. It reduces myocardial fibrosis, apoptosis, inflammation, and oxidative stress as well as increases autophagy in the animals. It also modulates myocardial calcium homeostasis, neurohumoral systems, and energy metabolism. However, its role in improving heart failure remains unclear. Therefore, elucidating its molecular mechanisms is imperative and would aid in the design of future studies.

Cardiac care of children with dystrophinopathy and females carrying DMD-gene variations

OBJECTIVE

We provide succinct, evidence-based and/or consensus-based best practice guidance for the cardiac care of children living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) as well as recommendations for screening and management of female carriers of mutations in the DMD-gene.

METHODS

Initiated by an expert working group of UK-based cardiologists, neuromuscular clinicians and DMD-patient representatives, draft guidelines were created based on published evidence, current practice and expert opinion. After wider consultation with UK-cardiologists, consensus was reached on these best-practice recommendations for cardiac care in DMD.

RESULTS

The resulting recommendations are presented in the form of a succinct care pathway flow chart with brief justification. The guidance signposts evidence on which they are based and acknowledges where there have been differences in opinion. Guidelines for cardiac care of patients with more advanced cardiac dystrophinopathy at any age have also been considered, based on the previous published work of Quinlivan et al and are presented here in a similar format. The recommendations have been endorsed by the British Cardiovascular Society.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide succinct, reasoned recommendations for all those managing paediatric patients with early or advanced stages of cardiomyopathy as well as females with cardiac dystrophinopathy. The hope is that this will result in more uniform delivery of high standards of care for children with cardiac dystrophinopathy, so improving heart health into adulthood through timely earlier interventions across the UK.

Mechanisms of Sinoatrial Node Dysfunction in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

The ability to increase heart rate during exercise and other stressors is a key homeostatic feature of the sinoatrial node (SAN). When the physiological heart rate response is blunted, chronotropic incompetence limits exercise capacity, a common problem in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Despite its clinical relevance, the mechanisms of chronotropic incompetence remain unknown.

METHODS

Dahl salt-sensitive rats fed a high-salt diet and C57Bl6 mice fed a high-fat diet and an inhibitor of constitutive nitric oxide synthase (Nω-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester [L-NAME]; 2-hit) were used as models of HFpEF. Myocardial infarction was created to induce HF with reduced ejection fraction. Rats and mice fed with a normal diet or those that had a sham surgery served as respective controls. A comprehensive characterization of SAN function and chronotropic response was conducted by in vivo, ex vivo, and single-cell electrophysiologic studies. RNA sequencing of SAN was performed to identify transcriptomic changes. Computational modeling of biophysically-detailed human HFpEF SAN was created.

RESULTS

Rats with phenotypically-verified HFpEF exhibited limited chronotropic response associated with intrinsic SAN dysfunction, including impaired β-adrenergic responsiveness and an alternating leading pacemaker within the SAN. Prolonged SAN recovery time and reduced SAN sensitivity to isoproterenol were confirmed in the 2-hit mouse model. Adenosine challenge unmasked conduction blocks within the SAN, which were associated with structural remodeling. Chronotropic incompetence and SAN dysfunction were also found in rats with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Single-cell studies and transcriptomic profiling revealed HFpEF-related alterations in both the "membrane clock" (ion channels) and the "Ca2+ clock" (spontaneous Ca2+ release events). The physiologic impairments were reproduced in silico by empirically-constrained quantitative modeling of human SAN function.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronotropic incompetence and SAN dysfunction were seen in both models of HF. We identified that intrinsic abnormalities of SAN structure and function underlie the chronotropic response in HFpEF.

CCS/CHFS Heart Failure Guidelines Update: Defining a New Pharmacologic Standard of Care for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

In this update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society heart failure (HF) guidelines, we provide comprehensive recommendations and practical tips for the pharmacologic management of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since the 2017 comprehensive update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of HF, substantial new evidence has emerged that has informed the care of these patients. In particular, we focus on the role of novel pharmacologic therapies for HFrEF including angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitors, and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in conjunction with other long established HFrEF therapies. Updated recommendations are also provided in the context of the clinical setting for which each of these agents might be prescribed; the potential value of each therapy is reviewed, where relevant, for chronic HF, new onset HF, and for HF hospitalization. We define a new standard of pharmacologic care for HFrEF that incorporates 4 key therapeutic drug classes as standard therapy for most patients: an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (as first-line therapy or after angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker titration); a β-blocker; a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; and a sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitor. Additionally, many patients with HFrEF will have clinical characteristics for which we recommended other key therapies to improve HF outcomes, including sinus node inhibitors, soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, hydralazine/nitrates in combination, and/or digoxin. Finally, an approach to management that integrates prioritized pharmacologic with nonpharmacologic and invasive therapies after a diagnosis of HFrEF is highlighted.

Ivabradine in Cardiovascular Disease Management Revisited: a Review

Ivabradine is a unique agent that is distinct from beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers as it reduces heart rate without affecting myocardial contractility or vascular tone. Ivabradine is a use-dependent inhibitor targeting the sinoatrial node. It is approved for use in the United States as an adjunct therapy for heart rate reduction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. In this scenario, ivabradine has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes due to reduction in heart failure readmissions. However, there has been conflicting evidence from prospective studies and randomized controlled trials for its use in stable ischemic heart disease regarding efficacy in symptom reduction and mortality benefit. Ivabradine may also play a role in the treatment of patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia, who often cannot tolerate beta-blockers and/or calcium channel blockers. In this review, we highlight the evidence for the nuances of using ivabradine in heart failure, stable ischemic heart disease, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia to raise awareness for its vital role in the treatment of select populations.

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.

Beneficial effects of ivabradine in patients with heart failure, low ejection fraction, and heart rate above 77 b.p.m

AIMS

Ivabradine has been approved in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and elevated heart rate despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to reduce cardiovascular (CV) death and hospitalization for worsening HF. The median value of 77 b.p.m. is the lower bound selected for the regulatory approval in Canada, South Africa, and Australia. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment are considered of major interest in the global plan of care of patients with HF. However, the specific impact of GDMT, and specifically ivabradine, on PRO remains poorly studied. In the subgroup of patients from the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) who had heart rate above the median of 77 b.p.m. (pre-specified analysis) and for whom the potential for improvement was expected to be larger, we aimed (i) to evaluate the effects of ivabradine on PRO (symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment); (ii) to consolidate the effects of ivabradine on the primary composite endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF; and (iii) to reassess the effects of ivabradine on left ventricular (LV) remodelling.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Comparisons were made according to therapy, and proportional hazards models (adjusted for baseline beta-blocker therapy) were used to estimate the association between ivabradine and various outcomes. In SHIFT, n = 3357 (51.6%) patients had a baseline heart rate > 77 b.p.m. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months (inter-quartile range 18-28 months), ivabradine on top of GDMT improved symptoms (28% vs. 23% improvement in New York Heart Association functional class, P = 0.0003), quality of life (5.3 vs. 2.2 improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, P = 0.005), and global assessment [from both patient (improved in 72.3%) and physician (improved in 61.0%) perspectives] significantly more than did placebo (both P < 0.0001). Ivabradine induced a 25% reduction in the combined endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF (hazard ratio 0.75; P < 0.0001), which translates into a number of patients needed to be treated for 1 year of 17. Patients under ivabradine treatment demonstrated a significant reduction in LV dimensions when reassessed at 8 months (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic HFrEF, sinus rhythm, and a heart rate > 77 b.p.m. while on GDMT, the present analysis brings novel insights into the role of ivabradine in improving the management of HFrEF, particularly with regard to PRO (ISRCTN70429960).