Dataset Information

Ivabradine in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Ivabradine is indicated for heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but limited data are available with regards to the use of ivabradine in those with a history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). To assess the effect of ivabradine in HFrEF patients with paroxysmal AF, we analysed heart failure (HF) hospitalization and mortality from multiple-centre registry database.

Methods and results

We conducted a multicentre observational matched cohort study, and this study enrolled patient with symptomatic HFrEF from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2018 who had a history of paroxysmal AF in Chang Gung Memorial Hospital medical database in Taiwan. A total of 2042 patients were eligible for the study, of whom 887 were prescribed with ivabradine and 1115 were not. The primary outcome, including HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death, and individual outcome during the 12 month observation period were analysed after inverse probability of treatment weighting. The ivabradine group had significantly lower mean heart rate after 12 months follow-up than the non-ivabradine group (P < 0.05). The primary outcome was significantly higher in the ivabradine group than the non-ivabradine group after 12 months follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.00, P < 0.001). Moreover, the ivabradine group had a significantly higher event rate of HF hospitalization (HR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.40-1.75, P < 0.001) and HF death (HR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.14-2.44, P = 0.009) than the non-ivabradine group.

Conclusions

Ivabradine treatment was associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization in symptomatic HFrEF patients with a history of paroxysmal AF. Further prospective randomized studies are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Lin YS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9288788 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ivabradine in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Lin Yu-Sheng YS Jan Jeng-Yu JY Chang Jung-Jung JJ Lin Ming-Shyan MS Yang Teng-Yao TY Wang Po-Chang PC Chen Mien-Cheng MC

ESC heart failure 20220512 4

<h4>Aims</h4>Ivabradine is indicated for heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but limited data are available with regards to the use of ivabradine in those with a history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). To assess the effect of ivabradine in HFrEF patients with paroxysmal AF, we analysed heart failure (HF) hospitalization and mortality from multiple-centre registry database.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We conducted a multicentre observational matched cohort s ...[more]

PMID: 35560828

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundRandomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes.MethodsWe constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective.ResultsCatheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89-6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311-$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20-5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624-$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583-$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations.ConclusionsCatheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.

Dataset Information

Ivabradine in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Ivabradine in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets