Dataset Information

Efficacy of ivabradine in heart failure patients with a high-risk profile (analysis from the SHIFT trial).

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Early start and patient profile-oriented heart failure (HF) management has been recommended. In this post hoc analysis from the SHIFT trial, we analysed the treatment effects of ivabradine in HF patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 110 mmHg, resting heart rate (RHR) ≥ 75 b.p.m., left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 25%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III/IV, and their combination.

Methods and results

The SHIFT trial enrolled 6505 patients (LVEF ≤ 35% and RHR ≥ 70 b.p.m.), randomized to ivabradine or placebo on the background of guideline-defined standard care. Compared with placebo, ivabradine was associated with a similar relative risk reduction of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization) in patients with SBP < 110 and ≥110 mmHg [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.08 vs. HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89, P interaction = 0.34], LVEF ≤ 25% and >25% (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.01 vs. HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.90, P interaction = 0.53), and NYHA III-IV and II (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.94 vs. HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, P interaction = 0.79). The effect was more pronounced in patients with RHR ≥ 75 compared with <75 (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.85 vs. HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-0.1.16, P interaction = 0.02). When combining these profiling parameters, treatment with ivabradine was also associated with risk reductions comparable with patients with low-risk profiles for the primary endpoint (relative risk reduction 29%), cardiovascular death (11%), HF death (49%), and HF hospitalization (38%; all P values for interaction: 0.40). No safety concerns were observed between study groups.

Conclusions

Our analysis shows that RHR reduction with ivabradine is effective and improves clinical outcomes in HF patients across various risk indicators such as low SBP, high RHR, low LVEF, and high NYHA class to a similar extent and without safety concern.

SUBMITTER: Abdin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10567656 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of ivabradine in heart failure patients with a high-risk profile (analysis from the SHIFT trial).

Abdin Amr A Komajda Michel M Borer Jeffrey S JS Ford Ian I Tavazzi Luigi L Batailler Cécile C Swedberg Karl K Rosano Giuseppe M C GMC Mahfoud Felix F Böhm Michael M

ESC heart failure 20230710 5

<h4>Aims</h4>Early start and patient profile-oriented heart failure (HF) management has been recommended. In this post hoc analysis from the SHIFT trial, we analysed the treatment effects of ivabradine in HF patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 110 mmHg, resting heart rate (RHR) ≥ 75 b.p.m., left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 25%, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III/IV, and their combination.<h4>Methods and results</h4>The SHIFT trial enrolled 6505 patients (LVEF ≤ 35% ...[more]

PMID: 37427483

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:AimsA therapeutic strategy for chronic heart failure (HF) is to lower resting heart rate (HR). Ivabradine is a well-known HR-lowering agent, but limited prospective data exist regarding its use in Chinese patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in Chinese patients with chronic HF.Methods and resultsThis multicentre, single-arm, prospective, observational study enrolled Chinese patients with chronic HF. The primary outcome was change from baseline in HR at 1 and 6 months, measured by pulse counting. Effectiveness was also evaluated using laboratory tests, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical summary score (CSS) and overall summary score (OSS), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. A post hoc analysis examined the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine combined with an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or beta-blocker. A total of 1003 patients were enrolled [mean age 54.4 ± 15.0 years, 773 male (77.1%), mean baseline HR 88.5 ± 11.3 b.p.m., mean blood pressure 115.7/74.4 ± 17.2/12.3 mmHg, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30.9 ± 7.6%, NYHA Classes III and IV in 48.8% and 22.0% of patients, respectively]. HR decreased by a mean of 12.9 and 16.1 b.p.m. after 1 and 6 months, respectively (both P < 0.001). At Month 6, improvements in the KCCQ CSS and OSS of ≥5 points were observed in 72.1% and 74.1% of patients, respectively (both P < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction increased by 12.1 ± 11.6 (P < 0.001), and 66.7% of patients showed improvement in NYHA class (P < 0.001). At Month 6, the overall proportion of patients in NYHA Classes III and IV was reduced to 13.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Serum brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP changed by -331.9 ng/L (-1238.6, -134.0) and -1113.8 ng/L (-2202.0, -297.2), respectively (P < 0.001). HR reductions and improvements in NYHA and KCCQ scores with ivabradine were similar with and without use of ARNIs or beta-blockers. Of 498 TEAEs in 296 patients (29.5%), 73 TEAEs in 55 patients (5.5%) were considered related to ivabradine [most frequent sinus bradycardia (n = 7) and photopsia (n = 7)]. TEAEs were reported in a similar number of patients in ARNI and beta-blocker subgroups (21.9-35.6%).ConclusionsIvabradine treatment reduced HR and improved cardiac function and health-related quality of life in Chinese patients with chronic HF. Benefits were seen irrespective of whether or not patients were also taking ARNIs or beta-blockers. Treatment was well tolerated with a similar profile to previous ivabradine studies.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of ivabradine in heart failure patients with a high-risk profile (analysis from the SHIFT trial).

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy of ivabradine in heart failure patients with a high-risk profile (analysis from the SHIFT trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets