Key result
Ivabradine significantly reduced 24-hour heart rate by 9.5 bpm compared to a 1.2 bpm reduction with placebo (P<0.0001) in patients with systolic heart failure, without significant bradycardia.
Why the study?
Does ivabradine safely lower 24-hour heart rate without inducing significant arrhythmias or bradycardia in patients with systolic heart failure?
RCT (n=602)
Placebo-controlled
Randomized
Does ivabradine safely lower 24-hour heart rate without inducing significant arrhythmias or bradycardia in patients with systolic heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: -9.5% vs -1.2%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Ivabradine significantly lowers 24-hour heart rate and improves heart rate variability in systolic heart failure patients without increasing the risk of significant bradycardia or arrhythmias.
Ivabradine appears rhythm-safe on Holter in HFrEF; leaves open prospective confirmation of HR variability benefits.
AIMS: Analysis of 24-h Holter recordings was a pre-specified substudy of SHIFT (Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial) for exploring the heart rhythm safety of ivabradine and to determine effects of ivabradine on 24-h, daytime, and night-time heart rate (HR) compared with resting office HR. METHODS AND RESULTS: The 24-h Holter monitoring was performed at baseline and 8 months after randomization to ivabradine (n = 298) or matching placebo (n = 304) titrated maximally to 7.5 mg b.i.d. in patients with baseline HR ≥70 b.p.m. Patients received guideline-based optimized heart failure therapy including ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs in 93% and beta-blockers at maximally tolerated doses in 93%. After 8 months, HR over 24 h decreased by 9.5 ± 10.0 b.p.m. with ivabradine, from 75.4 ± 10.3 b.p.m. (P < 0.0001), and by 1.2 ± 8.9 b.p.m. with placebo, from 74.8 ± 9.7 b.p.m. (P < 0.0001 for difference vs. ivabradine). HR reduction with ivabradine was similar in resting office and in 24-h, awake, and asleep recordings, with beneficial effects on HR variability and no meaningful increases in supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias. At 8 months, 21.3% on ivabradine vs. 8.5% on placebo had ≥1 episode of HR <40 b.p.m. (P < 0.0001). No episode of HR <30 b.p.m. was recorded; 3 (1.2%) patients had RR intervals >2.5 s on ivabradine vs. 4 (1.6%) patients on placebo. No RR intervals >3 s were identified in patients taking ivabradine. CONCLUSION: Ivabradine safely and significantly lowers HR and improves HR variability in patients with systolic heart failure, without inducing significant bradycardia, ventricular arrhythmias, or supraventricular arrhythmias.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Böhm et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Chronic Heart Failure (n=602). Ivabradine vs. Matching placebo was evaluated on Change in heart rate over 24 hours (p=<0.0001). Ivabradine significantly reduced 24-hour heart rate by 9.5 bpm compared to a 1.2 bpm reduction with placebo (P<0.0001) in patients with systolic heart failure, without significant bradycardia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: