Why the study?
Does ivabradine improve collateral flow index in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease?
Does ivabradine improve collateral flow index in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease?
Heart rate reduction with ivabradine over 6 months significantly improves coronary collateral function compared to placebo in patients with chronic stable CAD.
Ivabradine may enhance coronary collaterals in stable CAD; extends RCT evidence for heart-rate reduction benefits beyond symptom control.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of heart rate reduction by ivabradine on coronary collateral function in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: This was a prospective randomised placebo-controlled monocentre trial in a university hospital setting. 46 patients with chronic stable CAD received placebo (n=23) or ivabradine (n=23) for the duration of 6 months. The main outcome measure was collateral flow index (CFI) as obtained during a 1 min coronary artery balloon occlusion at study inclusion (baseline) and at the 6-month follow-up examination. CFI is the ratio between simultaneously recorded mean coronary occlusive pressure divided by mean aortic pressure both subtracted by mean central venous pressure. RESULTS: During follow-up, heart rate changed by +0.2±7.8 beats/min in the placebo group, and by -8.1±11.6 beats/min in the ivabradine group (p=0.0089). In the placebo group, CFI decreased from 0.140±0.097 at baseline to 0.109±0.067 at follow-up (p=0.12); it increased from 0.107±0.077 at baseline to 0.152±0.090 at follow-up in the ivabradine group (p=0.0461). The difference in CFI between the 6-month follow-up and baseline examination amounted to -0.031±0.090 in the placebo group and to +0.040±0.094 in the ivabradine group (p=0.0113). CONCLUSIONS: Heart rate reduction by ivabradine appears to have a positive effect on coronary collateral function in patients with chronic stable CAD. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01039389.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gloekler et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: