Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Evaluating the role of ivabradine in acute decompensated heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) presents a significant global health challenge, with high morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. The current therapeutic options for ADHF are limited. Ivabradine, a selective inhibitor of hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channels, has emerged as a potential therapy for ADHF by reducing the heart rate (HR) without negatively affecting myocardial contractility. However, the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of ivabradine in patients with ADHF is limited and inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivabradine for ADHF based on observational studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to identify relevant observational studies comparing ivabradine with placebo in adult patients with ADHF. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Four observational studies comprising a total of 12034 patients. Meta-analysis revealed that ivabradine significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR: 0.66, 95 % CI: 0.49-0.89, p < 0.01) and resting HR (MD: -12.54, 95 % CI: -21.66-3.42, p < 0.01) compared to placebo. However, no significant differences were observed in cardiovascular mortality, hospital readmission for all causes, changes in LVEF, or changes in LVEDD. Sensitivity and publication bias assessments were conducted for each outcome.

CONCLUSION

Ivabradine may be beneficial for reducing mortality and HR in patients with ADHF. However, its impact on other clinical outcomes such as cardiovascular mortality, hospital readmission, and cardiac function remains inconclusive. Further research, particularly well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up durations, are warranted.

Ivabradine in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Elevated resting heart rate (HR) predicts poor outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Ivabradine has been recommended as a second-line anti-anginal agent in chronic coronary syndrome, while there are no clear indications for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

RESULTS

We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials with search terms Ivabradine and Acute myocardial infarction. There are two study outcomes from this study: therapeutic and safety effects. Therapeutic effects include the efficacy of Ivabradine on HR, all-cause mortality, heart failure incidence, left ventricular function and remodeling. Safety effects include troponin levels and ischemic events (recurrent angina pectoris). A total of 6 RCTs was included and showed that Ivabradine was associated with greater resting HR reduction [MD - 5.40; 95%CI - 8.60, - 2.20], improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction [MD 2.98; 95%CI 0.44, 5.51], and left ventricular end systolic volume [MD - 3.81; 95%CI - 6.88, - 0.75]. However, Ivabradine had no impact on all-cause mortality [OR 0.76; 95%CI 0.35, 1.67], heart failure incidence [OR 0.61; 95%CI 0.21, 1.80], and recurrent angina pectoris [OR 0.71; 95%CI 0.50, 1.00].

CONCLUSIONS

Ivabradine is safe and effective for resting HR reduction in patients with STEMI; however, it has no significant influence on mortality. These results suggest that an elevated HR is only a marker of risk but not a modifiable determinant of outcomes in patients who have suffered an acute myocardial infarction.

Ivabradine added to usual care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in participants with heart failure.

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine and usual care with usual care (with or without) placebo in participants with heart failure.

INFORMATION SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, CNKI, VIP and other databases and trial registries up until 31 May 2021.

DATA EXTRACTION

Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and non-serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis of all outcomes. We used trial sequential analysis to control risks of random errors, the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risks of systematic errors and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 109 randomised clinical trials with 26 567 participants. Two trials were at low risk of bias, although both trials were sponsored by the company that developed ivabradine. All other trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could reject that ivabradine versus control reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)=0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; p=0.09; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that ivabradine seemed to reduce the risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.94; p<0.00001; number needed to treat (NNT)=26.2; low certainty of evidence). This was primarily due to a decrease in the risk of 'cardiac failure' (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p=0.02; NNT=43.9), 'hospitalisations' (RR=0.89; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; p<0.0001; NNT=36.4) and 'ventricular tachycardia' (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; p=0.001; NNT=212.8). However, the trials did not describe how these outcomes were defined and assessed during follow-up. Meta-analyses showed that ivabradine increased the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.35; p=0.008; number needed to harm (NNH)=116.3) and bradycardia (RR=3.95; 95% CI 1.88 to 8.29; p=0.0003; NNH=303). Ivabradine seemed to increase quality of life on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (mean difference (MD)=2.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 4.50; p=0.0003; low certainty of evidence), but the effect size was small and possibly without relevance to patients, and on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) (MD=-5.28; 95% CI -6.60 to -3.96; p<0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), but the effects were uncertain. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between ivabradine and control when assessing cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of non-serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

High certainty evidence shows that ivabradine does not seem to affect the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The effects on quality of life were small and possibly without relevance to patients on the KCCQ and were very uncertain for the MLWHFQ. The effects on serious adverse events, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation are uncertain. Ivabradine seems to increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and non-serious adverse events.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018112082.

Impact of ivabradine on the cardiac function of chronic heart failure reduced ejection fraction: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Elevated resting heart rate in chronic heart failure (HF) patients has been associated with higher mortality and poor prognosis. Ivabradine is a new pure bradycardic agent that has been used to treat angina or heart failure reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with sinus heart rate above 70 beats per minute. However, the effect of ivabradine for chronic HF patients on rehospitalization and cardiac function is still inconsistent. Thus, this meta‐analysis aimed to elucidate the effect of Ivabradine in chronic HFrEF patients. We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, Clinical Trials.gov, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ivabradine with search terms Ivabradine (MeSH Terms), chronic heart failure and beta‐blocker. The primary endpoints of the study include the impact of Ivabradine on heart rate, left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular remodeling, exercise capacity, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic HFrEF. Secondary endpoints were safety analysis of Ivabradine including cardiovascular mortality, worsening HF readmission, visual disturbances, and asymptomatic bradycardia. The analysis was done by Review Manager 5.4 Analyzer, to analyze the mean differences (MD) for continuous data and risks ratio (RR) for dichotomous data. A total of six RCTs and one subgroup analysis showed add of Ivabradine to standard HF therapy was associated with greater resting heart rate reduction (MD = −9.57; 95% CI ‐11.15, −8.00), improved LVEF (MD = 3.89; 95% CI 2.61, 5.17), left ventricular reverse remodeling improvement (MD = −3.73; 95% CI ‐4.25, −3.21, LVESV; MD = −17.00, 95%CI ‐29.65, −4.35, LVEDD; MD = −1.43, 95%CI ‐2.78, −0.08, LVEDV; MD = −14.75, 95%CI ‐34.36, 4.87), increased exercise capacity (exercise duration; MD = 8.52; 95%CI 0.09, 16.94), and significant reduction on rehospitalization due to worsening HF (RR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.69, 0.84). However, Ivabradine has no significant effect on the quality of life (MD = 0.65; 95%CI ‐10.52, 11.82), and cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.92; 95%CI 0.82, 1.03). Moreover, there were some events of visual disturbances and asymptomatic bradycardia observed in the Ivabradine group compared to the placebo group (RR = 4.76; 95%CI 3.03, 7.48; RR = 3.78; 95%CI 2.77, 5.15, respectively). Addition of Ivabradine to standard HF therapy is associated with cardiac function improvement, reduction on worsening HF readmission, greater HR reduction, and better exercise capacity in chronic HFrEF patients, although it cannot reduce cardiovascular mortality or improve the quality of life.