Key result
Low-dose digoxin outperforms ivabradine in HFpEF, improving walking distance by ~42 meters alongside dyspnea and NT-proBNP.
Why the study?
Does ivabradine or low-dose digoxin better improve symptoms, exercise capacity, and echocardiographic markers of diastolic dysfunction in patients with ischemic HFPEF?
RCT (n=42)
Single-blind
Cross-over design
No
Does ivabradine or low-dose digoxin better improve symptoms, exercise capacity, and echocardiographic markers of diastolic dysfunction in patients with ischemic HFPEF?
In patients with ischemic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, low-dose digoxin was significantly more effective than ivabradine at improving symptoms, exercise capacity, and echocardiographic markers of diastolic dysfunction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Low-dose digoxin may outperform ivabradine for ischemic HFpEF symptoms; challenges consensus on digoxin's obsolescence and ivabradine's role in preserved EF.
Multicenter trials have demonstrated that in patients with sinus rhythm ivabradine is effective in the therapy of ischemic heart disease and of impaired left ventricular systolic function. Ivabradine is ineffective in atrial fibrillation. Many patients with symptomatic heart failure have diastolic dysfunction with preserved left ventricular systolic function, and many have asymptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Ivabradine is not indicated in these conditions, but it happens that it is erroneously used. Digoxin is now considered an outdated and potentially dangerous drug and while effective in the mentioned conditions, is rarely used. The aim of the study was to compare the therapeutic effects of ivabradine in diastolic heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function. Patients were assigned to ivabradine or digoxin according to a randomization cross-over design. Data were single-blind analyzed. The analysis was performed using an intention-to-treat method. Forty-two coronary patients were selected. In spite of maximally tolerated therapy with renin-antagonists, diuretics and β-blockers, they had congestive diastolic heart failure with preserved systolic function. Both ivabradine and digoxin had positive effects on dyspnea, Nterminal natriuretic peptide, heart rate, duration of 6-min. walk-test and signs of diastolic dysfunction, but digoxin was high-statistically more effective. Side-effects were irrelevant. Data were obtained in a single-center and from 42 patients with ischemic etiology of heart failure. The number of patients is small and does not allow assessing mortality. In coronary patients with symptomatic diastolic heart failure with preserved systolic function low-dose digoxin was significantly more effective than ivabradine and is much cheaper. One should be more critical about ivabradine and low-dose digoxin in diastolic heart failure. To avoid possible negative effects on the cardiac function and a severe reduction of the cardiac output the resting heart rate should not be decreased to <65 beats/min.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cocco et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in Diastolic heart failure with preserved left ventricular systolic function (HFPEF) and ischemic heart disease (n=42). Low-dose digoxin vs. Ivabradine (7.5 mg bid) was evaluated on 6-minute walk test distance (meters) (p=<0.0001). In patients with symptomatic diastolic heart failure and preserved systolic function, low-dose digoxin was more effective than ivabradine in improving walking distance test distance, dyspnea, and NT-proBNP levels.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: