We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Ivabradine has a neutral effect on mortality in randomized controlled trials.
Medicine (Baltimore) 2017 October
BACKGROUND: It has long been a controversial hotspot whether resting heart rate (RHR) is a risk factor or a marker for death. Ivabradine, a specific inhibitor of the If current in the sinoatrial node, is a pure RHR lowering agent. The study was aimed to investigate whether ivabradine would reduce more RHR, cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, and all-cause mortality than those placebo or beta-blockers.
METHODS: The authors performed a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled clinical studies (with 40,357 participants), and 3 studies of those which were ivabradine versus placebo (36,069 participants) and other 5 studies ivabradine versus beta-blockers (4288 participants) were available. The authors compared the association of the RHR reduction with death from CVD causes (2674 in 40,285 participants) and the rate of all-cause death (3143 deaths in 38,037 participants), and assessed improvement in death rates with the use of ivabradine.
RESULTS: The change of RHR from baseline to endpoint was 8 to 16 beats/min (bpm) in ivabradine group, 1 to 8 bpm in placebo group, and 4 to 24 bpm in beta-blockers group. In ivabradine versus placebo, the reduced risks of CVD mortality and all-cause morbidity were not significantly (risk ratio [RR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.14, P = .737; RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92-1.09, P = .992, respectively). CVD and all-cause morbidity were similar for ivabradine versus beta-blockers (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.80-1.37, P = .752; RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.53-2.60, P = .697, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Ivabradine had a neutral effect on mortality, suggesting that a pure RHR lowering agent did not reduce CVD mortality, all-cause mortality and improve the lifespan.
METHODS: The authors performed a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled clinical studies (with 40,357 participants), and 3 studies of those which were ivabradine versus placebo (36,069 participants) and other 5 studies ivabradine versus beta-blockers (4288 participants) were available. The authors compared the association of the RHR reduction with death from CVD causes (2674 in 40,285 participants) and the rate of all-cause death (3143 deaths in 38,037 participants), and assessed improvement in death rates with the use of ivabradine.
RESULTS: The change of RHR from baseline to endpoint was 8 to 16 beats/min (bpm) in ivabradine group, 1 to 8 bpm in placebo group, and 4 to 24 bpm in beta-blockers group. In ivabradine versus placebo, the reduced risks of CVD mortality and all-cause morbidity were not significantly (risk ratio [RR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.14, P = .737; RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92-1.09, P = .992, respectively). CVD and all-cause morbidity were similar for ivabradine versus beta-blockers (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.80-1.37, P = .752; RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.53-2.60, P = .697, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Ivabradine had a neutral effect on mortality, suggesting that a pure RHR lowering agent did not reduce CVD mortality, all-cause mortality and improve the lifespan.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app