Effect of Ivabradine vs Atenolol on Heart Rate and Effort Tolerance in Patients With Mild to Moderate Mitral Stenosis and Normal Sinus Rhythm

2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the valvular heart disease guideline provides recommendations for clinicians to diagnose and manage valvular heart disease as well as supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1, 2010, to March 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Reports, and other selected database relevant to this guideline. Structure: Many recommendations from the earlier valvular heart disease guidelines have been updated with new evidence and provides newer options for diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease. This summary includes only the recommendations from the full guideline which focus on diagnostic work-up, the timing and choice of surgical and catheter interventions, and recommendations for medical therapy. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in developing these guidelines.

Beyond Heart Failure and Ischemic Heart Disease: A Scoping Review of Novel Uses of Ivabradine in Adults

Ivabradine lowers heart rate by inhibiting the hyperpolarization-activated current in pacemaker cells, and its use for the treatment of heart failure (HF) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) is well described. Ivabradine may be an attractive treatment option for other conditions for which a reduction in heart rate is desirable but less is known about its role in these settings. The primary objective was to perform a scoping review summarizing the literature evaluating novel uses for ivabradine other than HF and IHD in adults. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles for all dates through September 2019. Search strategies combined terms generic, commercial/trade, and international names for ivabradine. Manual search of references was also performed to identify additional articles. Studies were included if they were published in English, evaluated the efficacy of ivabradine for indications other than HF or IHD in patients aged 18 years or older, and the primary outcome included clinically relevant end points. Articles were screened first by title and abstract followed by full-text screening of the remaining articles. After removal of duplicates, 1807 records were screened for inclusion and 84 studies were included in this scoping review. Novel uses of ivabradine were reported for various tachyarrhythmias, valvular heart disease, premedication for coronary computed tomography angiography, perioperative risk reduction, sepsis with and without multi-organ dysfunction syndrome, cor pulmonale, reactive airway disease, and erectile dysfunction. This scoping review identified several potential novel uses for ivabradine in adults. This review may help to identify existing gaps where further research is needed to elucidate the role of ivabradine for indications beyond HF and IHD.

Ivabradine Versus Beta-Blockers in Mitral Stenosis in Sinus Rhythm: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Symptoms of mitral stenosis (MS) are worsened during tachycardia and exercise. Beta-blockers are used in controlling heart rate (HR) in MS, resulting in symptom improvement, but coming with significant side effects. Ivabradine has a selective action on the sinus node devoid of the usual side effects of beta-blockers. Small studies have recently investigated the role of ivabradine in MS in sinus rhythm. Our aim was to determine the efficacy of ivabradine, compared to beta-blockers, in terms of exercise duration, maximum HR achieved, resting HR, mean gradient, and working capacity among patients with MS in sinus rhythm.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of studies using MEDLINE, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Clinical Key, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases in all languages and examined reference lists of studies. We included studies if they are: 1) randomized controlled trials comparing ivabradine and beta-blockers; 2) of adults ≥ 19 years old with MS in sinus rhythm; and 3) reported data on exercise duration, maximum HR achieved, resting HR, mean gradient, and working capacity. Studies identified were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias. We used inverse variance analysis of fixed effects to compute for mean difference, carried out using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.

RESULTS

Pooled analysis from five identified trials showed that among patients with MS in sinus rhythm, ivabradine was better compared to beta-blockers in total exercise duration (mean difference: 32.73 s (95% CI: 12.19, 53.27; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%)), maximum HR achieved after exercise (mean difference: -3.87 beats per minute (95% CI: -5.88, -1.860; P = 0.0002; I2 = 23%)), and work capacity (mean difference: 0.56 METS (95% CI: 0.33, 0.80; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%)); inferior to beta-blockers in resting HR achieved (mean difference: 1.83 s (95% CI: 0.39, 3.28; P = 0.01; I2 = 91%)); and comparable to beta-blockers in terms of mean gradient (mean difference: -0.52 mm Hg (95% CI: -1.20, 0.16; P = 0.13; I2 = 6%)).

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine is better or comparable to beta-blockers in terms of the outcomes measured, and may be considered as an alternative for patients with MS in sinus rhythm who are intolerant to beta-blockers.

Ivabradine: A Review of Labeled and Off-Label Uses

Ivabradine is a unique medication recently approved in the USA for the treatment of select heart failure patients. It was first approved for use in several countries around the world over a decade ago as an anti-anginal agent, with subsequent approval for use in heart failure patients. Since ivabradine has selective activity blocking the I f currents in the sinus node, it can reduce heart rate without appreciable effects on blood pressure. Given this heart-rate-specific effect, it has been investigated in many off-label indications as an alternative to traditional heart-rate-reducing medications such as beta blockers and calcium channel blockers. We conducted searches of PubMed and Google Scholar for ivabradine, heart failure, HFrEF, HFpEF, angina, coronary artery disease, inappropriate sinus tachycardia, postural orthostatic hypotension, coronary computed tomography angiography and atrial fibrillation. We reviewed and included studies, case reports, and case series published between 1980 and June 2016 if they provided information relevant to the practicing clinician. In many cases, larger clinical trials are needed to solidify the benefit of ivabradine, although studies indicate benefit in most therapeutic areas explored to date. The purpose of this paper is to review the current labeled and off-label uses of ivabradine, with a focus on clinical trial data.

Effect of Ivabradine on Heart Rate and Duration of Exercise in Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Mitral Stenosis: A Randomized Comparison With Metoprolol

Background:

Symptoms in mitral stenosis (MS) are heart rate (HR) dependent. Increase in HR reduces diastolic filling period with rise in transmitral gradient. By reducing HR, beta-blockers improve hemodynamics and relieve symptoms, but the use may be limited by side effects. The present randomized crossover study looked at comparative efficacy of ivabradine and metoprolol on symptoms, hemodynamics, and exercise parameters in patients with mild-to-moderate MS (mitral valve area, 1–2 cm²) in normal sinus rhythm.

Material and Methods:

Baseline clinical assessment, treadmill stress testing, and an echocardiographic Doppler evaluation were performed to determine resting HR, total exercise duration, mean gradient across mitral valve, and mean pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP). Patients were then allocated to either metoprolol or ivabradine to maximal tolerated doses over 6 weeks (metoprolol: 100 mg twice a day, ivabradine: 10 mg twice a day). Reevaluation was done at the end of this period, and all drugs stopped for washout over 2 weeks. Thereafter, the 2 groups were crossed over to the other drug that was continued for another 6 weeks. Assessment was again performed at the end of this period.

Results:

Thirty-three patients of 34 completed the protocol. Fifteen were male, mean age was 28.9 ± 6.6 years, all were in New York Heart Association class 2, and mean resting HR was 103.5 ± 7.2/min. Mean mitral valve area was 1.56 ± 0.16 cm², mean PASP was 38.1 ± 5.1 mm Hg, and mean gradient across mitral valve was 10.6 ± 1.6 mm Hg. Significant decrease in baseline and peak exercise HR was observed at the end of follow-up with both drugs. Reduction in mitral valve gradient after ivabradine (42%) and metoprolol (37%) and reduction in PASP after both ivabradine (23%) and metoprolol (27%) were to a similar extent. Significant reduction in total exercise duration after both ivabradine and metoprolol therapy was observed. One patient developed blurring of vision with ivabradine therapy but did not require discontinuation of drug. An improvement in dyspnea of one grade was observed in all the patients by treatment with both ivabradine and metoprolol.

Conclusions:

Both metoprolol and ivabradine reduced symptoms and improved hemodynamics significantly from baseline to a similar extent. Ivabradine thus can be used effectively and safely in patients with MS in normal sinus rhythm who are intolerant or contraindicated for beta-blocker therapy.

A comparative study of ivabradine and atenolol in patients with moderate mitral stenosis in sinus rhythm

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers are frequently used in patients with mitral stenosis to control the heart rate and alleviate exercise-related symptoms. The objective of our study was to examine whether ivabradine was superior to atenolol for achieving higher exercise capacity in patients with moderate mitral stenosis in sinus rhythm. We also evaluated their effects on left ventricular myocardial performance index (MPI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Eighty-two patients with moderate mitral stenosis in sinus rhythm were randomized to receive ivabradine (n=42) 5mg twice daily or atenolol (n=40) 50mg daily for 6 weeks. Transthoracic echocardiography and treadmill test were performed at baseline and after completion of 6 weeks of treatment. Mean total exercise duration in seconds markedly improved in both study groups at 6 weeks (298.57±99.05s vs. 349.12±103.53s; p=0.0001 in ivabradine group, 290.90±92.42s vs. 339.90±99.84s; p=0.0001 in atenolol group). On head-to-head comparison, there was no significant change in improvement of exercise time between ivabradine and atenolol group (p=0.847). Left ventricular MPI did not show any significant change from baseline and at 6 weeks in both drug groups (49.8%±8% vs. 48.3%±7% in ivabradine group, 52.9%±10% vs. 50.9%±10% in atenolol groups; p=0.602).

CONCLUSION

Ivabradine or atenolol can be used for heart rate control in patients with moderate mitral stenosis in sinus rhythm. Ivabradine is not superior to atenolol for controlling heart rate or exercise capacity. Left ventricular MPI was unaffected by either of the drugs.

Ivabradine improves heart rate variability in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy

Background

Ivabradine is a novel specific heart rate (HR)-lowering agent that improves event-free survival in patients with heart failure (HF).

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the effect of ivabradine on time domain indices of heart rate variability (HRV) in patients with HF.

Methods

Forty-eight patients with compensated HF of nonischemic origin were included. Ivabradine treatment was initiated according to the latest HF guidelines. For HRV analysis, 24-h Holter recording was obtained from each patient before and after 8 weeks of treatment with ivabradine.

Results

The mean RR interval, standard deviation of all normal to normal RR intervals (SDNN), the standard deviation of 5-min mean RR intervals (SDANN), the mean of the standard deviation of all normal-to-normal RR intervals for all 5-min segments (SDNN index), the percentage of successive normal RR intervals exceeding 50 ms (pNN50), and the square root of the mean of the squares of the differences between successive normal to normal RR intervals (RMSSD) were low at baseline before treatment with ivabradine. After 8 weeks of treatment with ivabradine, the mean HR (83.6 ± 8.0 and 64.6 ± 5.8, p < 0.0001), mean RR interval (713 ± 74 and 943 ± 101 ms, p < 0.0001), SDNN (56.2 ± 15.7 and 87.9 ± 19.4 ms, p < 0.0001), SDANN (49.5 ± 14.7 and 76.4 ± 19.5 ms, p < 0.0001), SDNN index (24.7 ± 8.8 and 38.3 ± 13.1 ms, p < 0.0001), pNN50 (2.4 ± 1.6 and 3.2 ± 2.2 %, p < 0.0001), and RMSSD (13.5 ± 4.6 and 17.8 ± 5.4 ms, p < 0.0001) substantially improved, which sustained during both when awake and while asleep.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that treatment with ivabradine improves HRV in nonischemic patients with HF.