Safety and efficacy of off-label use of ivabradine in patients with acute heart failure

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.

Early administration of ivabradine in patients admitted for acute decompensated heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart rate (HR) control is important in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction, and ivabradine is indicated for patients with chronic HF and sinus rhythm. However, ivabradine is limited in initiation of ivabradine at acute stage of HF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multi-institutional retrospective study enrolled 30,639 patients who were admitted for HF from January 01, 2013 to December 31, 2018 at Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals. After applying selection criteria, the eligible patients were divided into ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups according to the initiation of ivabradine at the index hospitalization. HR, clinical outcomes including HF hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, mortality, the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization and newly developed atrial fibrillation, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrium size were compared between the ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis after 12 months.

RESULTS

The HR at admission in the ivabradine group (n = 433) was 99.04 ± 20.69/min, compared to 86.99 ± 20.34/min in the non-ivabradine group (n = 9,601). After IPTW, HR was lower in the ivabradine group than that in the non-ivabradine group after 12 months (74.14 ± 8.53 vs. 81.23 ± 16.79 bpm, p = 0.079). However, there were no significant differences in HF hospitalization (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.38-2.79), all-cause hospitalization (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.54-1.68), mortality (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.08), the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.08) and newly developed AF between the two groups. In addition, LVEF increased with time in both groups, but there were no significant differences during the observation period.

CONCLUSION

Ivabradine was beneficial in controlling HR when initiated in patients with acute stage of HF, but it did not seem to provide any benefits in reducing HF hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality in 1 year after discharge.

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.

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.