Ivabradine in patients with heart failure: a systematic literature review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khan Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10552613 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectivesNew treatments and interventions are in development to address clinical needs in heart failure. To support decision making on reimbursement, cost-effectiveness analyses are frequently required. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and summarize heart failure utility values for use in economic evaluations.MethodsDatabases were searched for articles published until June 2019 that reported health utility values for patients with heart failure. Publications were reviewed with specific attention to study design; reported values were categorized according to the health states, 'chronic heart failure', 'hospitalized', and 'other acute heart failure'. Interquartile limits (25th percentile 'Q1', 75th percentile 'Q3') were calculated for health states and heart failure subgroups where there were sufficient data.ResultsThe systematic literature review identified 161 publications based on data from 142 studies. Utility values for chronic heart failure were reported by 128 publications; 39 publications published values for hospitalized and three for other acute heart failure. There was substantial heterogeneity in the specifics of the study populations, methods of elicitation, and summary statistics, which is reflected in the wide range of utility values reported. EQ-5D was the most used instrument; the interquartile limit for mean EQ-5D values for chronic heart failure was 0.64-0.72.ConclusionsThere is a wealth of published utility values for heart failure to support economic evaluations. Data are heterogenous owing to specificities of the study population and methodology of utility value elicitation and analysis. Choice of value(s) to support economic models must be carefully justified to ensure a robust economic analysis.
| S-EPMC7867520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIvabradine improves cardiac function in patients with heart failure, but its effect on dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the efficacy and potential mechanisms of ivabradine's effect on cardiac function and prognosis in patients with DCM.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and four registers through September 28, 2022. All controlled trials of ivabradine for the treatment of DCM with congestive heart failure were included. Articles were limited to English, with the full text and necessary data available. We performed random- or fixed effects meta-analyses for all included outcome measures and compared the effect sizes for outcomes in patients treated with and without ivabradine. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2.0).FindingsFive trials with 357 participants were included. The pooled risk ratio was 0.48 [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.18, 1.25)] for all-cause mortality and 0.38 [95% CI (0.12, 1.23)] for cardiac mortality. The pooled mean difference was -15.95 [95% CI (-19.97, -11.92)] for resting heart rate, 3.96 [95% CI (0.99, 6.93)] for systolic blood pressure, 2.93 [95% CI (2.09, 3.77)] for left ventricular ejection fraction, -5.90 [95% CI (-9.36, -2.44)] for left ventricular end-systolic diameter, -3.41 [95% CI (-5.24, -1.58)] for left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, -0.81 [95% CI (-1.00, -0.62)] for left ventricular end-systolic volume, -0.67 [95% CI (-0.86, -0.48)] for left ventricular end-diastolic volume, -11.01 [95% CI (-19.66, -2.35)] for Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score, and -0.52 [95% CI (-0.73, -0.31)] for New York Heart Association class.InterpretationIvabradine reduces heart rate and ventricular volume, and improves cardiac function in patients with DCM, but showed no significant effect on the prognosis of patients.
| S-EPMC10616249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHeart rate (HR) control is important in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction, and ivabradine is indicated for patients with chronic HF and sinus rhythm. However, ivabradine is limited in initiation of ivabradine at acute stage of HF.Materials and methodsThis multi-institutional retrospective study enrolled 30,639 patients who were admitted for HF from January 01, 2013 to December 31, 2018 at Chang Gung Memorial Hospitals. After applying selection criteria, the eligible patients were divided into ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups according to the initiation of ivabradine at the index hospitalization. HR, clinical outcomes including HF hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, mortality, the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization and newly developed atrial fibrillation, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrium size were compared between the ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis after 12 months.ResultsThe HR at admission in the ivabradine group (n = 433) was 99.04 ± 20.69/min, compared to 86.99 ± 20.34/min in the non-ivabradine group (n = 9,601). After IPTW, HR was lower in the ivabradine group than that in the non-ivabradine group after 12 months (74.14 ± 8.53 vs. 81.23 ± 16.79 bpm, p = 0.079). However, there were no significant differences in HF hospitalization (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.38-2.79), all-cause hospitalization (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.54-1.68), mortality (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.08), the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.08) and newly developed AF between the two groups. In addition, LVEF increased with time in both groups, but there were no significant differences during the observation period.ConclusionIvabradine was beneficial in controlling HR when initiated in patients with acute stage of HF, but it did not seem to provide any benefits in reducing HF hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, and mortality in 1 year after discharge.
| S-EPMC9744812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Close and frequent follow-up of heart failure (HF) patients improves clinical outcomes. Mobile telemonitoring applications are advantageous alternatives due to their wide availability, portability, low cost, computing power, and interconnectivity. This study aims to evaluate the impact of telemonitoring apps on mortality, hospitalization, and quality of life (QoL) in HF patients. We conducted a registered (PROSPERO CRD42022299516) systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating mobile-based telemonitoring strategies in patients with HF, published between January 2000 and December 2021 in 4 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, BVSalud/LILACS, Cochrane Reviews). We assessed the risk of bias using the RoB2 tool. The outcome of interest was the effect on mortality, hospitalization risk, and/or QoL. We performed meta-analysis when appropriate; heterogeneity and risk of publication bias were evaluated. Otherwise, descriptive analyses are offered. We screened 900 references and 19 RCTs were included for review. The risk of bias for mortality and hospitalization was mostly low, whereas for QoL was high. We observed a reduced risk of hospitalization due to HF with the use of mobile-based telemonitoring strategies (RR 0.77 [0.67; 0.89]; I2 7%). Non-statistically significant reduction in mortality risk was observed. The impact on QoL was variable between studies, with different scores and reporting measures used, thus limiting data pooling. The use of mobile-based telemonitoring strategies in patients with HF reduces risk of hospitalization due to HF. As smartphones and wirelessly connected devices are increasingly available, further research on this topic is warranted, particularly in the foundational therapy.
| S-EPMC9845822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure (HF) creates a considerable clinical, humanistic and economic burden on patients and caregivers as well as on healthcare systems. To attenuate the significant burden of HF, there is a need for enhanced management of patients with HF. The use of digital tools for remote non-invasive monitoring of heart parameters is gaining traction, and cardiac acoustic biomarkers (CABs) have been proposed as a complementary set of measures to assess heart function alongside traditional methods such as electrocardiogram and echocardiography. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate associations between CABs and HF outcomes. Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched for recent studies published between 2013 and 2023 that evaluated CABs in patients with HF. Additional grey literature (i.e., conference, congress and pre-print publications from January 2021 to May 2023) searches were included. Two reviewers independently examined all articles; a third resolved conflicts. Data were extracted from articles meeting inclusion criteria. Extracted studies underwent quality and bias assessments using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. In total, 3074 records were screened, 73 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 27 publications were included. Third heart sound (S3) and electromechanical activation time (EMAT) were the CABs most often reported in the literature for monitoring HF. Fifteen publications discussed changes in S3 characteristics and its role in HF detection or outcomes: six studies highlighted S3 assessment among various groups of patients with HF; four studies evaluated the strength or amplitude of S3 with clinical outcomes; five studies assessed the relationship between S3 presence and clinical outcomes; and one study assessed both S3 presence and amplitude in relation to HF clinical outcomes. Eleven publications reported on EMAT and its derivatives: five studies on the relationship between EMAT and HF and six studies on the association of EMAT and HF clinical outcomes. Studies reporting the first and fourth heart sound, left ventricular ejection time and systolic dysfunction index were limited. Published literature supported S3 and EMAT as robust CAB measures in HF that may have value in remote clinical monitoring and management of patients with HF. Additional studies designed to test the predictive power of these CABs, and others less well-characterized, are needed. This work was funded by Astellas Pharma Inc.
| S-EPMC11911591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile ivabradine has demonstrated benefits in heart rate control and prognosis for chronic heart failure patients, its application in acute decompensated heart failure remains underexplored.HypothesisFor patients with acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are intolerant to β-blockers or unable to further titrate their dosage, the use of ivabradine is hypothesized to be effective and safe is improving outcomes.MethodsThis retrospective, multicenter database analysis included patients with hospitalized decompensated heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤40% from June 1, 2015 to December 31, 2020. The exclusion criteria were a baseline heart rate of <70 bpm, previous use of ivabradine, mortality during admission, existing atrial fibrillation, or atrial flutter. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure.ResultsOf the 4163 HFrEF patients analyzed, 684 (16.4%) were administered ivabradine during their index admission. After matching, there were 617 patients in either group. The results indicated that ivabradine use was not significantly associated with the risk of the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.94-1.29). Similarly, the risk of secondary outcomes and adverse renal events did not significantly differ between the ivabradine and non-ivabradine cohorts (all p > .05).ConclusionFor hospitalized acute decompensated heart failure patients who are intolerant to β-blockers or cannot further titrate them, ivabradine offers a consistent therapeutic effect. No significant disparities were noted between the ivabradine and non-ivabradine groups in heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death.
| S-EPMC10765997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The ability to predict risk allows healthcare providers to propose which patients might benefit most from certain therapies, and is relevant to payers' demands to justify clinical and economic value. To understand the robustness of risk prediction models for heart failure (HF), we conducted a systematic literature review to (1) identify HF risk-prediction models, (2) assess statistical approach and extent of validation, (3) identify common variables, and (4) assess risk of bias (ROB). METHODS:Literature databases were searched from March 2013 to May 2018 to identify risk prediction models conducted in an out-of-hospital setting in adults with HF. Distinct risk prediction variables were ranked according to outcomes assessed and incorporation into the studies. ROB was assessed using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). RESULTS:Of 4720 non-duplicated citations, 40 risk-prediction publications were deemed relevant. Within the 40 publications, 58 models assessed 55 (co)primary outcomes, including all-cause mortality (n = 17), cardiovascular death (n = 9), HF hospitalizations (n = 15), and composite endpoints (n = 14). Few publications reported detail on handling missing data (n = 11; 28%). The discriminatory ability for predicting all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and composite endpoints was generally better than for HF hospitalization. 105 distinct predictor variables were identified. Predictors included in >5 publications were: N-terminal prohormone brain-natriuretic peptide, creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, systolic blood pressure, sodium, NYHA class, left ventricular ejection fraction, heart rate, and characteristics including male sex, diabetes, age, and BMI. Only 11/58 (19%) models had overall low ROB, based on our application of PROBAST. In total, 26/58 (45%) models discussed internal validation, and 14/58 (24%) external validation. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of the 58 identified risk-prediction models for HF present particular concerns according to ROB assessment, mainly due to lack of validation and calibration. The potential utility of novel approaches such as machine learning tools is yet to be determined. REGISTRATION NUMBER:The SLR was registered in Prospero (ID: CRD42018100709).
| S-EPMC6961879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) is an emerging biomarker in several conditions. This SLR, conducted following PRISMA guidelines, examined the association between GDF-15 concentration and range of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). Publications were identified from Embase® and Medline® bibliographic databases between January 1, 2014, and August 23, 2022 (congress abstracts: January 1, 2020, to August 23, 2022). Sixty-three publications met the eligibility criteria (55 manuscripts and 8 abstracts; 45 observational studies and 18 post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Of the 19 outcomes identified, the most frequently reported longitudinal outcomes were mortality (n = 32 studies; all-cause [n = 27] or cardiovascular-related [n = 6]), composite outcomes (n = 28; most commonly mortality ± hospitalization/rehospitalization [n = 19]), and hospitalization/re-hospitalization (n = 11). The most common cross-sectional outcome was renal function (n = 22). Among longitudinal studies assessing independent relationships with outcomes using multivariate analyses (MVA), a significant increase in risk associated with higher baseline GDF-15 concentration was found in 22/24 (92 %) studies assessing all-cause mortality, 4/5 (80 %) assessing cardiovascular-related mortality, 13/19 (68 %) assessing composite outcomes, and 4/8 (50 %) assessing hospitalization/rehospitalization. All (7/7; 100 %) of the cross-sectional studies assessing the relationship with renal function by MVA, and 3/4 (75 %) assessing exercise capacity, found poorer outcomes associated with higher baseline GDF-15 concentrations. This SLR suggests GDF-15 is an independent predictor of mortality and other adverse but nonfatal outcomes in patients with HF. A better understanding of the prognostic role of GDF-15 in HF could improve clinical risk prediction models and potentially help optimize treatment regimens.
| S-EPMC11369438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough poor medication adherence is considered an impacting risk factor for worsening heart failure (HF) outcomes, adherence rates in HF patients continue to be considerably low. To improve this condition, several studies investigated the impact of many determinants on medication adherence; however, few authors explored the role of depression on it.Purpose of reviewThe purpose of this systematic review was to explore the association between depressive symptoms and medication adherence in HF patients. In particular, the research question was is depression a barrier to medication adherence in HF patients?MethodsA systematic review of quantitative analysis studies was undertaken. Six electronic databases were searched between the end of October and March 2022. Thirty-one trials were included, all of them assessed depression, adherence to medication, and their possible relationship.ResultsAs was intended, findings showed that the impact of a mild to moderate level of depression was significant on adherence to treatment in HF patients. However, many other risk factors emerged, like family support and health practices (es. low sodium diet).ConclusionThe detection of depression in the setting of HF should be crucial to HF patients' physical health and quality of life. Future research should take depression into account, exploring this area through self-report and qualitative interview as well.
| S-EPMC9747824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsIvabradine and sacubitril/valsartan are second-line therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on guideline recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two medications.Methods and resultsPatients' data were extracted from a multicentre database between 2016 and 2018. Patients were classified into (1) Simultaneous group: simultaneous prescription of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan within 6 weeks; (2A) Sequential group, ivabradine-first: ivabradine was prescribed first, followed by sacubitril/valsartan; and (2B) Sequential group, sacubitril/valsartan-first: sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed first, followed by ivabradine. A total of 464 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Cardiovascular death and/or unplanned re-hospitalizations for HF were less frequent (28.6% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.01), and the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in patients from the Simultaneous group than those from the Sequential group (∆LVEF 12.8 ± 12.9% vs. 9.3 ± 12.6%, P = 0.007). Among Sequential subgroups, the ivabradine-first treatment decreased heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment (∆heart rate -9.1 ± 12.9 b.p.m. vs. 2.6 ± 16.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001; ∆SBP 4.6 ± 16.5 mmHg vs. -4.8 ± 17.2 mmHg, P < 0.001), whereas sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment showed a higher degree of LVEF improvement (∆LVEF 3.6 ± 7.8% vs. 0.7 ± 7.7%, P = 0.002) than ivabradine-first treatment. At the end of follow-up, SBP, LVEF, and left ventricular volume were comparable between two Sequential subgroups.ConclusionsAmong patients with HFrEF, simultaneous rather than sequential treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was a better strategy to reduce adverse events and achieve left ventricular reverse remodelling. Ivabradine treatment had a more significant benefit on improving haemodynamic stability, whereas sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a more significant effect on improving LVEF.
| S-EPMC8006660 | biostudies-literature