Ivabradine and Bisoprolol on Doppler-derived Coronary Flow Velocity Reserve in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Beyond the Heart Rate

Introduction

Coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) is an important prognostic marker in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Beta-blockers and ivabradine have been shown to improve CFVR in patients with stable CAD, but their effects were never compared. The aim of the current study was to compare the effects of bisoprolol and ivabradine on CFVR in patients with stable CAD.

Methods

Patients in sinus rhythm with stable CAD were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients had to be in a stable condition for at least 15 days before enrollment, on their usual therapy. Patients who were receiving beta-blockers or ivabradine entered a 2-week washout period from these drugs before randomization. Transthoracic Doppler-derived CFVR was assessed in left anterior descending coronary artery, and was calculated as the ratio of hyperemic to baseline diastolic coronary flow velocity (CFV). Hyperemic CFV was obtained using dipyridamole administration using standard protocols. After CFVR assessment, patients were randomized to ivabradine or bisoprolol and entered an up-titration phase, and CFVR was assessed again 1 month after the end of the up-titration phase.

Results

Fifty-nine patients (38 male, 21 female; mean age 69 ± 9 years) were enrolled. Transthoracic Doppler-derived assessment of CFV and CFVR was successfully performed in all patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the bisoprolol and ivabradine groups. No patient dropped out during the study. At baseline, rest and hyperemic peak CFV as well as CFVR was not significantly different in the ivabradine and bisoprolol groups. After the therapy, resting peak CFV significantly decreased in both the ivabradine and bisoprolol groups, but there was no significant difference between the groups (ivabradine group 20.7 ± 4.6 vs. 22.8 ± 5.2, P < 0.001; bisoprolol group 20.1 ± 4.1 vs. 22.1 ± 4.3, P < 0.001). However, hyperemic peak CFV significantly increased in both groups, but to a greater extent in patients treated with ivabradine (ivabradine: 70.7 ± 9.4 vs. 58.8 ± 9.2, P < 0.001; bisoprolol: 65 ± 8.3 vs. 58.7 ± 8.2, P < 0.001). Accordingly, CFVR significantly increased in both groups (ivabradine 3.52 ± 0.64 vs. 2.67 ± 0.55, P < 0.001; bisoprolol 3.35 ± 0.70 vs. 2.72 ± 0.55, P < 0.001), but it was significantly higher in ivabradine group, despite a similar decrease in heart rate (63 ± 7 vs. 61 ± 6; P not significant).

Conclusion

Ivabradine improves hyperemic peak CFV and CFVR to a greater extent than bisoprolol in patients with stable CAD, despite a similar decrease in heart rate. These data demonstrate that the benefits from ivabradine therapy go beyond the heart rate. This could be due to a different mechanism such as diastolic perfusion time, isovolumic ventricular relaxation, end-diastolic pressure, and collaterals.

Funding

Servier.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0237-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An evaluation of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ivabradine for the treatment of heart failure

INTRODUCTION

Ivabradine is a new heart-rate-lowering drug; the aim of this review was to analyze its role in heart failure (HF).

AREAS COVERED

This systematic review on the role of ivabradine in HF is based on material searched and obtained through Pubmed and Medline up to September 2013.

EXPERT OPINION

Heart rate (HR) is a risk factor in patients with HF, and its reduction is considered an important goal of therapy. The BEAUTIFUL trial demonstrated the benefits of ivabradine on prognosis (only on ischemic endpoints) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and HR ≥ 60 bpm. In the SHIFT trial, which enrolled patients with LVSD, HF and HR ≥ 70 bpm, ivabradine administration (on top of guideline-based therapy, including β-blockers [BB]) was associated with a reduction of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for HF, but BB were underutilized. Further studies are needed to test the efficacy of ivabradine in CAD patients with high HR and to shed light on the comparison between ivabradine and a more aggressive therapy with higher doses of BB in HF patients.

Ivabradine improves coronary flow reserve in patients with stable coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

Although treatment with ivabradine reduces the incidence of hospital admissions for myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation, there are no data concerning its effect on coronary circulation. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of ivabradine on coronary flow velocity and flow reserve (CFR) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

During diagnostic coronary angiography (baseline), twenty-one patients with stable CAD underwent coronary flow velocity measurements (APV cm/s) in a non-culprit vessel, using a Doppler guidewire, at rest (r) and after adenosine administration to achieve maximal hyperaemia (h). During programmed coronary intervention in the culprit vessel, the same measurements were repeated one week after treatment with ivabradine (5 mg twice daily), both at the intrinsic heart rate and at a paced heart rate identical to that before treatment. CFR was defined as h-APV/r-APV.

RESULTS

Heart rate was significantly lower after treatment with ivabradine (78±14 bpm vs 65±9 bpm, p<0.001). Also, a reduction of r-APV (17.0±5.5 vs 19.7±7.6, p=0.003) and augmentation of h-APV (57.9±17.8 vs 53.5±21.4, p=0.009) leading to CFR improvement (3.51±0.81 vs 2.78±0.61, p<0.001) were observed. During pacing, although r-APV reverted to values similar to those before treatment (20.0±6.5 vs 19.7±7.6, p=NS), a sustained improvement in h-APV was observed (59.5±19.7 vs 53.5±21.4, p=0.007) and CFR remained higher than before treatment (3.04±0.66 vs 2.78±0.61, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine treatment significantly improves hyperaemic coronary flow velocity and CFR in patients with stable CAD. These effects remain even after heart rate correction indicating improved microvascular function.