Key result
Ivabradine safely reduces angina and myocardial ischemia in stable CAD and chronic heart failure.
Why the study?
Does ivabradine improve symptoms and exercise tolerance in patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure?
Does ivabradine improve symptoms and exercise tolerance in patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure?
This review supports the clinical utility and safety of approved doses of ivabradine for managing stable coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure.
May support ivabradine for heart-rate control in CAD and HF; review leaves open optimal patient selection.
Ivabradine is a selective antagonist of the funny channels with anti-anginal and anti-ischemic properties, approved for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure (HF). It provides pure heart rate reduction, reducing the diastolic depolarization slope, without altering hemodynamic parameters. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the efficacy of ivabradine in patients with cardiovascular diseases, with a particular focus on its role in the clinical management of patients with CAD and HF. There is consistent evidence that ivabradine is effective in reducing angina pectoris symptoms and myocardial ischemia. At approved doses ivabradine is safe, improves exercise tolerance, and reduces heart rate. Available data from clinical trials support its use in the management of patients with stable CAD and chronic HF. Recent studies have cast doubt on the safety of non-approved high doses of ivabradine for the treatment of patients with CAD and without clinical HF, but have shown no concerns on the doses approved for clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rosano et al. (2014) conducted a review in Coronary artery disease and heart failure. Ivabradine was evaluated. Ivabradine is effective in reducing angina pectoris symptoms and myocardial ischemia, and is safe at approved doses for managing stable coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: