Effect of Ivabradine on Heart Failure: A 2024 Meta-Analysis

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. A stratified flow diagram of all studies identified, with screening in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria

• 

  Figure 2. Bar graph showing the percentage risk of bias for each domain of the involved studies. The studies used to generate the risk of bias figure above include Bonnet et al. (2017) [7], Ye et al. (2022) [8], Tsutsui et al. (2019) [9], Dogheim et al. (2022) [10], Raja et al. (2017) [11], Tsutsui et al. (2016.1) [12], Tsutsui et al. (2016.2) [12], Kosmala et al. (2013) [13], Sarullo et al. (2010) [14], Abdel-Salam et al. (2014) [15], and Mansour et al. (2011) [16].

• 

  Figure 3. Individual studies' risk of bias for each domain and subsequent overall risk of bias. Studies included: Bonnet et al. (2017) [7], Ye et al. (2022) [8], Tsutsui et al. (2019) [9], Dogheim et al. (2022) [10], Raja et al. (2017) [11], Tsutsui et al. (2016.1) [12], Tsutsui et al. (2016.2) [12], Kosmala et al. (2013) [13], Sarullo et al. (2010) [14], Abdel-Salam et al. (2014) [15], and Mansour et al. (2011) [16].

• 

  Figure 4. Forest plot of the mean difference in heart rate with ivabradine vs. placebo. Studies included: Bonnet et al. (2017) [7], Ye et al. (2022) [8], Tsutsui et al. (2019) [9], Dogheim et al. (2022) [10], Raja et al. (2017) [11], Tsutsui et al. (2016.1) [12], Tsutsui et al. (2016.2) [12], Kosmala et al. (2013) [13], Sarullo et al. (2010) [14], Abdel-Salam et al. (2014) [15], and Mansour et al. (2011) [16].

• 

  Figure 5. Forest plot of the mean difference in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with ovabradine vs. placebo. Sources include: Bonnet et al. (2017) [7], Ye et al. (2022) [8], Tsutsui et al. (2019) [9], Dogheim et al. (2022) [10], Raja et al. (2017) [11], Tsutsui et al. (2016.1) [12], Tsutsui et al. (2016.2) [12], Kosmala et al. (2013) [13], Sarullo et al. (2010) [14], Abdel-Salam et al. (2014) [15], and Mansour et al. (2011) [16].

• 

  Figure 6. Forest plot of the mean difference in the MLWHF-QoL with ivabradine vs. placebo. Sources include: Raja et al. (2017) [11], Abdel-Salam et al. (2014) [15], and Mansour et al. (2011) [16].

• 

  Figure 7. Forest plot of the mean difference in NT-proBNP levels with ivabradine vs. placebo. Sources include: Dogheim et al. (2022) [10], Tsutsui et al. (2016.1) [12], Tsutsui et al. (2016.2) [12], and Sarullo et al. (2010) [14].

• 

  Figure 8. Forest plot of the mean difference in BNP levels with ivabradine vs. placebo. Sources include: Raja et al. (2017) [11], Tsutsui et al. (2016.1) [12], Tsutsui et al. (2016.2) [12], and Kosmala et al. (2013) [13].

• 

  Figure 9. Forest plot of the risk ratio of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality with ivabradine vs. placebo. Sources included: Ye et al. (2022) [8], Tsutsui et al. (2019) [9].

• 

  Figure 10. Forest plot of the risk ratio of heart failure (HF) readmission with ivabradine vs. placebo. Sources included: Ye et al. (2022) [8] and Tsutsui et al. (2019) [9].

• 

  Figure 11. Forest plot of the risk ratio of asymptomatic bradycardia with ivabradine vs. placebo. Sources included: Tsutsui et al. (2019) [9] and Dogheim et al. (2022) [10].

• 

  Figure 12. Forest plot showing the risk ratio of atrial fibrillation with ivabradine vs. placebo. Sources included: Tsutsui et al. (2019) [9] and Dogheim et al. (2022) [10].