Key result
A review of three large randomized trials found that ivabradine was negative in the treatment of angina and provided only a marginal benefit over placebo in heart failure.
Why the study?
Does ivabradine improve outcomes in patients with angina and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction?
Does ivabradine improve outcomes in patients with angina and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction?
This review highlights the limited and marginal benefits of ivabradine in angina and heart failure, suggesting careful consideration of risk-cost/benefit balances before prescription.
Supports cautious ivabradine use in angina and HFrEF; leaves open targeted subgroup roles.
Ivabradine is an original drug that has been approved in two indications (systolic heart failure and angina). The aim of this short review is to draw the attention of clinician prescribers to the evidence base of ivabradine. Three large randomized trials testing ivabradine versus placebo have been performed. The BEAUTIFUL and SIGNIFY trials were in fact negative in the treatment of angina while the SHIFT trial found a marginal benefit of ivabradine over placebo in the treatment of heart failure. These important results are put into perspective in order to improve the assessment of risk-cost/benefit balances when ivabradine is considered. Ideally, a further clinical trial investigating the use of ivabradine in heart failure should be carried out with optimal treatment of the patient population in order to identify the subgroup of patients who respond to ivabradine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ennezat et al. (2017) conducted a review in Angina and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Ivabradine vs. Placebo was evaluated. A review of three large randomized trials found that ivabradine was negative in the treatment of angina and provided only a marginal benefit over placebo in heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: