Search

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., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Ivabradine has been approved in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and elevated heart rate despite guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to reduce cardiovascular (CV) death and hospitalization for worsening HF. The median value of 77 b.p.m. is the lower bound selected for the regulatory approval in Canada, South Africa, and Australia. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment are considered of major interest in the global plan of care of patients with HF. However, the specific impact of GDMT, and specifically ivabradine, on PRO remains poorly studied. In the subgroup of patients from the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) who had heart rate above the median of 77 b.p.m. (pre-specified analysis) and for whom the potential for improvement was expected to be larger, we aimed (i) to evaluate the effects of ivabradine on PRO (symptoms, quality of life, and global assessment); (ii) to consolidate the effects of ivabradine on the primary composite endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF; and (iii) to reassess the effects of ivabradine on left ventricular (LV) remodelling., Methods and Results: Comparisons were made according to therapy, and proportional hazards models (adjusted for baseline beta-blocker therapy) were used to estimate the association between ivabradine and various outcomes. In SHIFT, n = 3357 (51.6%) patients had a baseline heart rate > 77 b.p.m. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months (inter-quartile range 18-28 months), ivabradine on top of GDMT improved symptoms (28% vs. 23% improvement in New York Heart Association functional class, P = 0.0003), quality of life (5.3 vs. 2.2 improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score, P = 0.005), and global assessment [from both patient (improved in 72.3%) and physician (improved in 61.0%) perspectives] significantly more than did placebo (both P < 0.0001). Ivabradine induced a 25% reduction in the combined endpoint of CV death and hospitalization for HF (hazard ratio 0.75; P < 0.0001), which translates into a number of patients needed to be treated for 1 year of 17. Patients under ivabradine treatment demonstrated a significant reduction in LV dimensions when reassessed at 8 months (P < 0.05)., Conclusions: In patients with chronic HFrEF, sinus rhythm, and a heart rate > 77 b.p.m. while on GDMT, the present analysis brings novel insights into the role of ivabradine in improving the management of HFrEF, particularly with regard to PRO (ISRCTN70429960)., (© 2019 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and sinus rhythm, heart rate reduction with ivabradine reduces the composite incidence of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization., Methods and Results: It is unclear whether the duration of HF prior to therapy independently affects outcomes and whether it modifies the effect of heart rate reduction. In SHIFT, 6505 patients with chronic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction of ≤35%), in sinus rhythm, heart rate of ≥70 b.p.m., treated with guideline-recommended therapies, were randomized to placebo or ivabradine. Outcomes and the treatment effect of ivabradine in patients with different durations of HF were examined. Prior to randomization, 1416 ivabradine and 1459 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 weeks and <1.5 years; 836 ivabradine and 806 placebo patients had HF duration of 1.5 years to <4 years, and 989 ivabradine and 999 placebo patients had HF duration of ≥4 years. Patients with longer duration of HF were older (62.5 years vs. 59.0 years; P < 0.0001), had more severe disease (New York Heart Association classes III/IV in 56% vs. 44.9%; P < 0.0001) and greater incidences of co-morbidities [myocardial infarction: 62.9% vs. 49.4% (P < 0.0001); renal dysfunction: 31.5% vs. 21.5% (P < 0.0001); peripheral artery disease: 7.0% vs. 4.8% (P < 0.0001)] compared with patients with a more recent diagnosis. After adjustments, longer HF duration was independently associated with poorer outcome. Effects of ivabradine were independent of HF duration., Conclusions: Duration of HF predicts outcome independently of risk indicators such as higher age, greater severity and more co-morbidities. Heart rate reduction with ivabradine improved outcomes independently of HF duration. Thus, HF treatments should be initiated early and it is important to characterize HF populations according to the chronicity of HF in future trials., (© 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology.)

Objective: The introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) has led to renewed interest in developing strategies to reduce 30 day readmissions among patients with heart failure (HF). In this study, a model was developed to investigate whether the addition of ivabradine to a standard-of-care (SoC) treatment regimen for patients with HF would reduce HRRP penalties incurred by a hypothetical hospital with excess 30 day readmissions.Research Design: A model using a Monte Carlo simulation framework was developed. Model inputs included national hospital characteristics, hospital-specific characteristics, and the ivabradine treatment effect as quantified by a post hoc analysis of the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT).Results: The model computed an 83% reduction in HF readmission penalty payments in a hypothetical hospital with a readmission rate of 22.95% (excess readmission ratio = 1.056 over the national average readmission rate of 21.73%), translating into net savings of $44,016. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the readmission penalty is affected by the specific characteristics of the hospital, including the readmission rate, size of the ivabradine-eligible population, and ivabradine utilization.Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the addition of ivabradine to an SoC treatment regimen for patients with HF may lead to a reduction in the penalties incurred by hospitals under the HRRP. This highlights the role ivabradine can play as part of a wider effort to optimize the care of patients with HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), slowing of the heart rate with ivabradine reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations among patients with systolic chronic heart failure (CHF). Subsequently, in the Study Assessing the Morbidity-Mortality Benefits of the If Inhibitor Ivabradine in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (SIGNIFY) slowing of the heart rate in patients without CHF provided no benefit for cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (primary composite end point), with secondary analyses suggesting possible harm in the angina subgroup. Therefore, we examined the impact of ivabradine in the patients with CHF plus angina in SHIFT. Methods: SHIFT enrolled adults with stable, symptomatic CHF, a left ventricular ejection fraction = 35% and a sinus rhythm with a resting heart rate ≥ 70 bpm. Outcomes were the SHIFT and SIGNIFY primary composite end points and their components. Results: Of 6,505 patients in SHIFT, 2,220 (34%) reported angina at randomization. Ivabradine numerically, but not significantly, reduced the SIGNIFY primary composite end point by 8, 11 and 11% in the SHIFT angina subgroup, nonangina subgroup and overall population, respectively. Ivabradine also reduced the SHIFT primary composite end point in all 3 subgroups. Conclusions: In SHIFT, ivabradine showed consistent reduction of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CHF; similar results were seen in the subgroup of SHIFT patients with angina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: During the post-discharge phase following a heart failure hospitalization (HFH), patients are at high risk of early readmission despite standard of care therapy. We examined the impact of chronic exposure to ivabradine on early readmissions in patients hospitalized for heart failure during the course of the SHIFT study (Systolic Heart Failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial).Methods and Results: A total of 1186 of the 6505 randomized patients experienced at least one HFH during the study, and had a more severe profile than those without HFH. Of these 1186 patients, 334 patients (28%) were rehospitalized within 3 months for any reason, mostly for cardiovascular causes (86%), including HFH (61%). Ivabradine was associated with fewer all-cause hospitalizations at 1 month [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.00, P < 0.05], 2 months (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.98, P = 0.03), and 3 months (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, P = 0.04). A trend for a reduction in cardiovascular and HF hospitalizations was also observed in ivabradine-treated patients.Conclusion: We demonstrate in this post-hoc analysis that chronic exposure to ivabradine reduces the incidence of all-cause hospitalizations during the vulnerable phase after a HFH. Further studies are needed to investigate if in-hospital or early post-discharge initiation of ivabradine could be useful to improve early outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: In heart failure, non-adherence increases events; in turn, the effect of hospitalization on adherence is incompletely understood. We explored the relationship of non-adherence to outcomes, hospitalizations with non-adherence, and the influence of non-adherence on treatment effects of heart rate lowering with ivabradine.Methods and Results: In the randomized, controlled Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If-inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), we studied the effect of non-adherence (n = 1287) compared with adherence (n = 5204) on cardiovascular outcomes. After adjustment, non-adherence was associated with the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 3.47, 95% confidence interval 2.91-4.13, P < 0.0001). No interaction with the treatment groups of placebo or ivabradine (P for interaction 0.54) occurred. Similar results for cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization, as well as for cardiovascular hospitalization, heart failure death, and total death were observed. The effect of ivabradine was maintained in patients being adherent or becoming non-adherent during the trial (P for interaction = 0.54). Patients with a previous hospitalization were more likely to become non-adherent thereafter.Conclusions: Non-adherence identifies a group at particularly high cardiovascular event risk independent of treatment allocation. Non-adherent patients in the ivabradine group maintain a treatment benefit. Patients with previous hospitalizations are more likely to become non-adherent and represent a group of particularly high-risk patients in whom special attention to stimulate adherence may be valuable.Trial Registration: ISRCTN70429960. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate clinical profiles and outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure (HF) with or without diabetes, and the efficacy and safety of ivabradine (heart rate-lowering agent) with respect to diabetic status.Methods and Results: This is a post hoc analysis on patients in SHIFT, a randomized controlled trial in adults in sinus rhythm with systolic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and resting heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. Patients were randomized to ivabradine (titrated to 7.5 mg bid) or placebo. Diabetic status was established by medical history at baseline. The primary composite endpoint (PCE) was cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for worsening HF. Of 6505 patients, 30% had diabetes, 32% of whom used insulin. The PCE was more frequent in patients with diabetes [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.31; p = 0.001], as was hospitalization for worsening HF (adjusted HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13-1.44; P < 0.001), and was increased in patients treated with insulin (adjusted HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.66; P < 0.01 vs. non-diabetics). Ivabradine significantly reduced the PCE in patients with and without diabetes (adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94 and HR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.75-0.95, respectively; interaction P was non-significant) vs. placebo. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in patients with diabetes (78%) than without (74%) (P < 0.001). Regardless of diabetic status, the incidence of serious adverse events was not significantly different between ivabradine and placebo.Conclusions: Comorbid diabetes in chronic HF worsens the prognosis of systolic HF patients. Irrespective of diabetic status, ivabradine is effective and safe in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ivabradine, a specific heart rate lowering agent, was shown in the SHIFT study to reduce time to first hospitalization for worsening heart failure (HF) in chronic systolic HF patients and also to reduce recurrent/total hospitalizations over the study interval. We assessed the effects of adding ivabradine in patients with systolic HF on the number needed to treat (NNT) to reduce recurrent hospitalizations.Methods: The SHIFT trial included 6505 patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA II-IV), left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and heart rate ≥70 bpm in sinus rhythm. Patients were randomized to either ivabradine or placebo in addition to guidelines-based drug therapy. The times to first hospitalization were analyzed using a univariate Cox proportional-hazards model; the associated NNT was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time-to-event curves at 1 year in each treatment arm. Recurrent hospitalizations were analyzed using a negative binomial and the estimated annual event rates used to calculate the associated patient-time NNTs respectively.Results: The estimated NNT (number needed to initiate treatment with ivabradine to prevent one first HF hospitalization within 1 year) was 27 (estimated hazard ratio: 0.75, P < 0.0001). For recurrent HF hospitalizations, one event would be prevented on average per 14 patient-years for any year of follow-up over the course of SHIFT (estimated rate ratio: 0.71, P < 0.0001). A key limitation of this analysis is that it did not account for a relationship between recurrent HF hospitalizations and subsequent mortality.Conclusion: In chronic systolic HF the effect of ivabradine on reducing recurrent HF hospitalizations results in a lower NNT compared to the effect on the time for first hospitalization. The effect of ivabradine on recurrent hospitalizations, in addition to first events, may be a more appropriate measure when considering the impact of a treatment with ivabradine on healthcare resource utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We explored the prescription of β-blockers with ivabradine in patients with systolic heart failure, focusing on the most frequently coprescribed β-blocker, carvedilol. Methods: We analyzed outcomes in SHIFT patients with systolic heart failure who were prescribed β-blockers (carvedilol, bisoprolol, metoprolol, or nebivolol) with ivabradine or placebo. Analysis was by intention to treat in patients prescribed a β-blocker at the time of the event. Results: Data were available for 2,596 patients receiving carvedilol, 1,483 bisoprolol, 1,424 metoprolol, and 197 nebivolol. Mean treatment duration was 19 months. There was no difference in the effect of ivabradine on the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization between the various β-blockers [hazard ratios (HR) for risk reduction, 0.75-0.89; p for interaction = 0.86]. Patients prescribed carvedilol with ivabradine had lower rates of primary composite endpoint (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.94), heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61-0.88), and cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.92) versus carvedilol with placebo. The dosage of carvedilol had no detectable effect and there were no unexpected safety issues. Conclusions: Whatever β-blocker was coprescribed with ivabradine, there were improvements in cardiovascular outcomes in patients with systolic heart failure, especially with the most prescribed β-blocker - carvedilol. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Analysis of 24-h Holter recordings was a pre-specified substudy of SHIFT (Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial) for exploring the heart rhythm safety of ivabradine and to determine effects of ivabradine on 24-h, daytime, and night-time heart rate ( HR) compared with resting office HR. Methods and results The 24-h Holter monitoring was performed at baseline and 8 months after randomization to ivabradine ( n = 298) or matching placebo ( n = 304) titrated maximally to 7.5 mg b.i.d. in patients with baseline HR ≥70 b.p.m. Patients received guideline-based optimized heart failure therapy including ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs in 93% and beta-blockers at maximally tolerated doses in 93%. After 8 months, HR over 24 h decreased by 9.5 ± 10.0 b.p.m. with ivabradine, from 75.4 ± 10.3 b.p.m. ( P < 0.0001), and by 1.2 ± 8.9 b.p.m. with placebo, from 74.8 ± 9.7 b.p.m. ( P < 0.0001 for difference vs. ivabradine). HR reduction with ivabradine was similar in resting office and in 24-h, awake, and asleep recordings, with beneficial effects on HR variability and no meaningful increases in supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias. At 8 months, 21.3% on ivabradine vs. 8.5% on placebo had ≥1 episode of HR <40 b.p.m. ( P < 0.0001). No episode of HR <30 b.p.m. was recorded; 3 (1.2%) patients had RR intervals >2.5 s on ivabradine vs. 4 (1.6%) patients on placebo. No RR intervals >3 s were identified in patients taking ivabradine. Conclusion Ivabradine safely and significantly lowers HR and improves HR variability in patients with systolic heart failure, without inducing significant bradycardia, ventricular arrhythmias, or supraventricular arrhythmias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Low systolic blood pressure ( SBP) is associated with poor outcomes in heart failure and complicates management. In a post hoc analysis, we investigated the efficacy and safety of ivabradine in the SHIFT population divided by tertiles of baseline SBP. Methods and Results The analysis comprised 2110 patients with SBP <115 mmHg, 1968 with 115≤ SBP <130 mmHg, and 2427 with SBP ≥130 mmHg. Patients with low SBP were younger, had lower ejection fraction, and were less likely to be at target beta-blocker dose than patients in the other SBP groups. Ivabradine was associated with a similar relative risk reduction of the composite outcome in the three SBP groups [ SBP <115 mmHg, hazard ratio ( HR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval ( CI) 0.72-0.98; 115≤ SBP <130 mmHg, HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; SBP ≥130 mmHg, HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.92; P interaction = 0.68]. Similar results were found for cardiovascular mortality ( P interaction = 0.91), hospitalization because of heart failure ( P interaction = 0.79), all-cause mortality ( P interaction = 0.90), and heart failure mortality ( P interaction = 0.18). There was no evidence for a difference in safety profile according to SBP group. Conclusion The efficacy and safety of ivabradine is independent of SBP. This may have implications for the management of HF patients with low SBP and elevated heart rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We studied the relationship between heart rate and renal function and the effects of heart rate reduction with ivabradine in heart failure patients with and without renal dysfunction. Methods and results From the 6505 patients who were randomized in SHIFT, baseline creatinine and at least one follow-up measurement were available in 6160 patients. Median follow-up was 22.9 months. Worsening renal function (WRF) was defined as a creatinine increase of =0.3 mg/dL and =25% from the baseline value. WRF developed in 1029 (17%) patients and was directly related to baseline heart rate, with an incremental risk of 5% for every 5 b.p.m. heart rate increment (P =0.003). WRF was associated with an increased risk of the primary composite endpoint of hospitalization for worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death [hazard ratio (HR) 1.38, P <0.001] and of all-cause mortality (HR 1.42, P <0.001). Ivabradine use was associated with a reduction of the primary composite endpoint in patients both with (HR 0.82, P =0.023) and without renal dysfunction (HR 0.81, P <0.001) at baseline (P for interaction=0.89), and tolerability of ivabradine was comparable in the two groups. No differences were found in changes in renal function over time between ivabradine- and placebo-treated patients. Conclusion In chronic stable systolic heart failure patients, heart rate is directly and independently associated with the risk of WRF, but reduction in heart rate by ivabradine had a neutral effect on renal function during 2 years of follow-up. The beneficial cardiovascular effects and safety of ivabradine were similar in patients with and without renal dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A post hoc analysis of Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT) explored the efficacy and safety of ivabradine in severe heart failure (HF) as denoted by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)≤20% and/or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV. The SHIFT population (LVEF ≤35%, heart rate ≥70 beats/min, and sinus rhythm) comprised 712 patients with severe (defined previously) and 5,973 with less severe (NYHA classes II or III and LVEF >20%) HF, all randomized to ivabradine or placebo on a background of guideline-defined standard care. The rate of primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization with placebo was higher in severe (42%) than less severe (27%) HF (p <0.001). Treatment with ivabradine in severe HF was associated with relative risk reductions indistinguishable from those of less severe disease for the primary end point (16% reduction), all-cause death (22%), cardiovascular death (22%), HF death (37%), and HF hospitalization (17%; all p values for interaction: NS). NYHA class improved in 38% (n = 129) ivabradine-treated patients with severe HF versus 29% (n[104) placebo-treated patients (p = 0.009). In the 272 patients with severe HF and baseline heart rate ≤75 beats/min (the indication approved by the European Medicines Agency), ivabradine reduced the primary end point by 25% (p = 0.045), HF hospitalization by 30% (p = 0.042), and cardiovascular death by 32% (p = 0.034). Ivabradine's safety profile in severe HF was indistinguishable from less severe. In conclusion, our analysis confirms that heart rate reduction with ivabradine can be safely used in severe HF and may improve clinical outcomes independently of disease severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heart rate not only predicts outcome but may also be a therapeutic target in patients with chronic heart failure. Several classes of pharmacological agents can be used to modulate heart rate, including beta-blockers, ivabradine, digoxin, amiodarone, and verapamil. Choice of agent will depend on heart rhythm, co-morbidities, and disease phenotype. Beneficial and harmful interactions may also exist. The aim of this paper is to summarize the current body of knowledge regarding the relevance of heart rate as a prognostic factor (risk marker) and particularly as a therapeutic target (risk factor) in patients with chronic heart failure, with a special focus on ivabradine, a novel agent that is currently the only available purely bradycardic agent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To test whether the efficacy and safety of the selective heart rate-reducing agent ivabradine changes according to age in chronic heart failure (HF) patients. Methods and results The ivabradine and placebo arms of SHIFT, which enrolled 6505 chronic HF patients, were combined and age distribution was divided by quartiles to give four groups (<53 years, n = 1522; 53 to <60 years, n = 1521; 60 to <69 years, n = 1750; and ≥69 years, n = 1712). The effects of ivabradine on cardiovascular outcomes, changes in heart rate, and adverse events, particularly bradycardia, were evaluated according to age group. A subgroup (602 patients) underwent 24 h ambulatory ECG Holter monitoring. The relative risk of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening HF) was reduced by ivabradine in all age groups, ranging from 38% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50–0.78, P < 0.001] in the youngest patients <53 years to 16% (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71–0.99, P = 0.035) in the oldest patients ≥69 years. Ivabradine up-titration reduced heart rate similarly in all age groups, by 11 b.p.m. As anticipated, bradycardia and phosphenes occurred more frequently with ivabradine, at a similar rate whatever the age. In the Holter substudy, there were no episodes of severe bradycardia and no clinically relevant pauses with ivabradine in any age group. Conclusions Age does not limit the appropriate use of ivabradine in patients with chronic HF and systolic dysfunction. The safety and efficacy of ivabradine are comparable across all age groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We explored the impact of being hospitalized due to worsening heart failure (WHF) or a myocardial infarction (MI) on subsequent mortality in a large contemporary data set of patients with stable chronic systolic heart failure (HF). Methods and results A total of 6558 patients with stable systolic HF, 6505 with analysable data, with an EF of ≤35%, who were included in the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), were followed for a median of 22.9 months with respect to hospitalizations and vital status. Among the 1288 patients who had at least one hospitalization due to WHF or MI, 455 (35.3%) died during follow-up compared with 600 (11.5%) among patients not hospitalized for these reasons. The risk for death was highest in the early phase after hospitalization. The risk declined rapidly during the first month but remained 3.5-fold (95% confidence interval 2.3–5.1) increased at 18 months after a first WHF hospitalization and 8.8-fold (95% confidence interval 3.6–21.6) increased at 18 months after a first MI hospitalization. Conclusion The present study confirms previous findings that in patients with stable chronic systolic HF, a hospitalization for WHF or MI is associated with substantially increased risk for subsequent death even with contemporary extensive background pharmacological therapy. The risk is most pronounced in the early phase of hospitalization but remains elevated even after 18 months. Preventing HF hospitalization appears as an important therapeutic objective in such patients, and a hospitalization for WHF or MI should lead to a careful therapeutic reassessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To test the effect of ivabradine on the outcomes in a broad population with left-ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction with coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or heart failure (HF). Methods and results Individual trial data from BEAUTIFUL and SHIFT were pooled to evaluate the effect of ivabradine on the outcomes in patients with LV dysfunction and heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. The pooled population (n = 11 897; baseline age 62.3 ± 10.4 years, heart rate 79.6 ± 9.2 b.p.m., and LV ejection fraction 30.3 ± 5.6%) was well treated according to current recommendations (87% beta-blockers, 90% renin–angiotensin system inhibitors). Median follow-up was 21 months. Treatment with ivabradine was associated with a 13% relative risk reduction for the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization (P < 0.001 vs. placebo); this was driven by HF hospitalizations (19%, P < 0.001). There were also significant relative risk reductions for the composite of cardiovascular mortality, HF hospitalizations, or myocardial infarction (MI) hospitalization (15%, P < 0.001); cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal MI (10%, P = 0.023); and MI hospitalization (23%, P = 0.009). Similar results were found in patients with differing clinical profiles. Ivabradine was well tolerated. Conclusion Ivabradine may be important for the improvement of clinical outcomes in patients with LV systolic dysfunction and heart rate ≥70 b.p.m., whatever the primary clinical presentation (CAD or HF) or clinical status (NYHA class). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Aims We explored the effect of treatment with ivabradine, a pure heart rate-slowing agent, on recurrent hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (HF) in the SHIFT trial. Methods and results SHIFT was a double-blind clinical trial in which 6505 patients with moderate-to-severe HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, all of whom had been hospitalized for HF during the preceding year, were randomized to ivabradine or to placebo on a background of guideline-recommended HF therapy (including maximized β-blockade). In total, 1186 patients experienced at least one additional HF hospitalization during the study, 472 suffered at least two, and 218 suffered at least 3. Patients with additional HF hospitalizations had more severe disease than those without. Ivabradine was associated with fewer total HF hospitalizations [902 vs. 1211 events with placebo; incidence rate ratio, 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65–0.87, P = 0.0002] during the 22.9-month median follow-up. Ivabradine-treated patients evidenced lower risk for a second or third additional HF hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% CI, 0.55–0.79, P < 0.001 and HR: 0.71, 95% CI, 0.54–0.93, P = 0.012, respectively]. Similar observations were made for all-cause and cardiovascular hospitalizations. Conclusion Treatment with ivabradine, on a background of guidelines-based HF therapy, is associated with a substantial reduction in the likelihood of recurrent hospitalizations for worsening HF. This benefit can be expected to improve the quality of life and to substantially reduce health-care costs. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article provides information on the study "Effect of ivabradine on recurrent hospitalization for worsening heart failure." It reveals that patients with moderate to severe chronic heart failure (HF) benefit from ivabradine. A chart is presented that illustrated the economic burden of chronic HF.

Aims The SHIFT echocardiographic substudy evaluated the effects of ivabradine on left ventricular (LV) remodelling in heart failure (HF). Methods and results Eligible patients had chronic HF and systolic dysfunction [LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%], were in sinus rhythm, and had resting heart rate ≥70 bpm. Patients were randomly allocated to ivabradine or placebo, superimposed on background therapy for HF. Complete echocardiographic data at baseline and 8 months were available for 411 patients (ivabradine 208, placebo 203). Treatment with ivabradine reduced LVESVI (primary substudy endpoint) vs. placebo [−7.0 ± 16.3 vs. −0.9 ± 17.1 mL/m2; difference (SE), −5.8 (1.6), 95% CI −8.8 to −2.7, P< 0.001]. The reduction in LVESVI was independent of beta-blocker use, HF aetiology, and baseline LVEF. Ivabradine also improved LV end-diastolic volume index (−7.9 ± 18.9 vs. −1.8 ± 19.0 mL/m2, P= 0.002) and LVEF (+2.4 ± 7.7 vs. −0.1 ± 8.0%, P< 0.001). The incidence of the SHIFT primary composite outcome (cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for worsening HF) was higher in patients with LVESVI above the median (59 mL/m2) at baseline (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.03–2.56, P= 0.04). Patients with the largest relative reductions in LVESVI had the lowest event rates. Conclusion Ivabradine reverses cardiac remodelling in patients with HF and LV systolic dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Aims Heart failure (HF) has a major impact on health-related quality of life (HQoL). The aim was to evaluate whether heart rate (HR) reduction with ivabradine can translate into increased HQoL in parallel to a reduction of primary outcomes in SHIFT. Methods and results In symptomatic patients with systolic HF treated with recommended background therapy, HQoL was assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) containing the following dimensions: overall summary score (OSS) and clinical summary score (CSS), analysed at baseline, and 4, 12, and 24 months, and last post-baseline visit. A total of 1944 patients (968 ivabradine, 976 placebo) were evaluated. At 12 months, incidence of clinical events (cardiovascular death or hospital admission for HF) was inversely associated with KCCQ scores. Ivabradine reduced HR by 10.1 bpm (placebo-corrected, P < 0.001) and improved KCCQ by 1.8 for CSS and 2.4 for OSS (placebo-corrected, P = 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively); these changes were associated with the change in HR for both CSS (P < 0.001) and OSS (P < 0.001). The relationship was found in both allocation groups though the changes were more pronounced in the ivabradine group. Health-related quality of life at follow-up was better preserved in the ivabradine group compared with placebo; poorest outcomes were seen in the placebo group with lowest KCCQ scores (<50). Conclusion In patients with systolic HF, low HQoL is associated with an increased rate of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for HF. Reduction in HR with ivabradine is associated with improved HQoL. The magnitude of HR reduction is related to the extent of improvement in HQoL. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Ivabradine is a specific heart rate-lowering antianginal agent that was evaluated in a clinical development program involving approximately 3,000 patients with stable coronary artery disease, most with angina pectoris. We analyzed the pharmacokinetics, efficacy (evaluated by exercise tolerance testing), safety, and effects on glucose metabolism of ivabradine in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in this program. Most analyses included data from 535 patients with DM, approximately 18% of the overall patient sample. Patients with DM were older, more likely to be women, and more likely to have more severe angina pectoris than patients without DM. The pharmacokinetics of ivabradine did not differ in patients with DM versus those without DM. A reduction in the heart rate at rest with ivabradine was similar in those with (15.2%) and without (15.7%) DM. At baseline, the exercise capacity tended to be lower in the patients with DM, but the improvements in most exercise tolerance measures with ivabradine treatment were similar in patients with and without DM. No special safety concerns were associated with ivabradine in those with DM. The rates of sinus bradycardia and visual disturbances, known to be related to the action of ivabradine, showed no relative increase in the patients with DM. Ivabradine treatment was not associated with adverse effects on glucose metabolism. In conclusion, ivabradine was effective in preventing angina in patients with DM and was not associated with particular safety concerns or adverse effects on glucose metabolism. Ivabradine represents an attractive alternative to β blockers in patients with stable angina pectoris and DM. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aims: Elevated heart rate is a significant marker for mortality and morbidity in cardiovascular disease including heart failure. Despite background treatment with a beta-blocker, many patients with heart failure and low ejection fraction maintain a heart rate above 70 b.p.m. Ivabradine reduces heart rate directly through inhibition of the If ionic current. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: The antianginal and anti-ischemic efficacy of ivabradine has been demonstrated in large-scale trials. Pooling trial data allowed for subpopulation analyses of ivabradine’s antianginal efficacy. Methods: Data on the frequency of angina attacks, short-acting nitrate consumption, and heart rate were pooled from 5 randomized trials in patients with stable angina pectoris receiving 5, 7.5, or 10 mg of ivabradine b.i.d. for 3 or 4 months. The subpopulations were defined according to age, sex, disease characteristics, and comorbidities (severity of angina, history of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, revascularization status, diabetes, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or peripheral vascular disease). Results: Efficacy data were available for 2,425 patients (full analysis set), in whom ivabradine reduced the frequency of diary-based angina attacks by 59.4% and nitrate consumption by 53.7%. All subpopulations experienced 51–70% reductions in the frequency of angina attacks, with similar reductions for the other parameters studied. Ivabradine’s efficacy was maintained in the presence of different comorbidities. In the safety set, ivabradine reduced heart rate by 14.5%. Ivabradine had a good safety and tolerability profile in all the subpopulations assessed. Conclusions: The antianginal efficacy of ivabradine was consistent across all the subpopulations analyzed, independent of the severity of angina and the presence of a comorbidity. Copyright © 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: The usefulness of adjudication by central end point committees (CECs) is poorly assessed in heart failure (HF) trials. We aimed to assess its impact on the outcome of the SHIFT trial (Systolic HF Treatment With the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial). Methods: SHIFT was a randomized placebo-controlled trial investigating the effect of ivabradine in 6505 HF patients with reduced ejection fraction. Prespecified end points, reported by investigators (all cardiologists) using specific case report form pages, included all-cause and specific causes of deaths and hospitalizations. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular deaths or hospitalizations for worsening HF. We compared the adjudication of prespecified end points made by investigators and by the CEC. Results: Investigators identified 7529 prespecified end points, 6793 of which were confirmed by the CEC: 98.1% of cardiovascular deaths, 88.6% of all hospitalizations, and 84.4% of hospitalizations for worsening HF. These differences had no meaningful impact on the study results; hazard ratio for the primary composite end point: investigators, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.76–0.91) versus CEC, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75–0.90), with similar results for each component of the primary end point (hazard ratio of 0.92 versus 0.91 for cardiovascular death and 0.78 versus 0.74 for hospitalization for worsening HF). Conclusions: Central adjudication by a CEC in the SHIFT study confirmed most of cardiovascular deaths and worsening HF hospitalizations assessed by cardiologists and did not result in a significant change of the final result as compared to investigator judgment. In this context, the benefits of CEC in blinded HF trials should be reconsidered. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02441218. URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN70429960; Unique identifier: ISRCTN70429960. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We identified easily obtained baseline characteristics associated with outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and elevated heart rate (HR) receiving contemporary guideline-recommended therapy in the SHIFT trial, and used them to develop a prognostic model. Methods We selected the 10 best predictors for each of four outcomes (cardiovascular death or HF hospitalisation; all-cause mortality; cardiovascular mortality; and HF hospitalisation). All variables with p < 0.05 for association were entered into a forward stepwise Cox regression model. Our initial analysis excluded baseline therapies, though randomisation to ivabradine or placebo was forced into the model for the composite endpoint and HF hospitalisation. Results Increased resting HR, low ejection fraction, raised creatinine, New York Heart Association class III/IV, longer duration of HF, history of left bundle branch block, low systolic blood pressure and, for three models, age were strong predictors of all outcomes. Additional predictors were low body mass index, male gender, ischaemic HF, low total cholesterol, no history of hyperlipidaemia or dyslipidaemia and presence of atrial fibrillation/flutter. The c-statistics for the four outcomes ranged from 67.6% to 69.5%. There was no evidence for lack of fit of the models with the exception of all-cause mortality (p = 0.017). Similar results were found including baseline therapies. Conclusion The SHIFT Risk Model includes simple, readily obtainable clinical characteristics to produce important prognostic information in patients with chronic HF, systolic dysfunction, and elevated HR. This may help better calibrate management to individual patient risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resting heart rate is central to cardiac output and is influenced by changes occurring in numerous diseases. It predicts longevity and cardiovascular diseases, and current evidence suggests that it is also an important marker of outcome in cardiovascular disease, including heart failure. Beta-blockers improve outcomes in heart failure; however, they have effects outside reducing heart rate. Ivabradine has demonstrated efficacy in reducing rehospitalizations and mortality in heart failure and in improving exercise tolerance and reducing angina attacks in patients with coronary artery disease, whereas selective heart rate reduction may also prove to be beneficial in therapeutic areas outside those in which ivabradine has already demonstrated clinical efficacy. This review provides an update on the associations between heart rate and cardiovascular outcomes in various conditions, the experimental effects of heart rate reduction with ivabradine, and the potential new indications in cardiovascular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study aimed to determine whether isolated heart rate (HR) reduction with ivabradine reduces afterload of patients with systolic heart failure. Background: The effective arterial elastance (Ea) represents resistive and pulsatile afterload of the heart derived from the pressure volume relation. HR modulates Ea, and, therefore, afterload burden. Methods: Among the patients with systolic heart failure (ejection fraction ≤35%) randomized to either placebo or ivabradine in the SHIFT (Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial), 275 patients (n = 132, placebo; n = 143, ivabradine 7.5 mg twice a day) were included in the echocardiographic substudy. Ea, total arterial compliance (TAC), and end-systolic elastance (Ees) were calculated at baseline and after 8 months of treatment. Blood pressure was measured by arm cuff; stroke volume (SV), ejection fraction, and end-diastolic volume were assessed by echocardiography. Results: At baseline Ea, TAC, HR, and Ees did not differ significantly between ivabradine- and placebo-treated patients. After 8 months of treatment, HR was significantly reduced in the ivabradine group (p < 0.0001) and was accompanied by marked reduction in Ea (p < 0.0001) and improved TAC (p = 0.004) compared with placebo. Although contractility remained unchanged, ventricular-arterial coupling was markedly improved (p = 0.002), resulting in a higher SV (p < 0.0001) in the ivabradine-treated patients. Conclusions: Isolated HR reduction by ivabradine improves TAC, thus reducing Ea. Because Ees is unaltered, improved ventricular-arterial coupling is responsible for increased SV. Therefore, unloading of the heart may contribute to the beneficial effect of isolated HR reduction in patients with systolic heart failure. (Systolic Heart Failure Treatment With the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial [SHIFT]; ISRCTN70429960) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article presents information on a study which determined the relationship between heart rate and events in patients with chronic heart failure. In the randomized placebo-controlled trial, the cardiovascular outcomes in the placebo and ivabradine groups was analyzed. Main outcome measure was cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening heart failure. It examines heart-rate reduction as mechanism for risk reduction by ivabradine. Findings of the study are discussed in detail.

The article provides information on a study which identified the effect of heart-rate reduction by the selective sinus-node inhibitor ivabradine on outcomes in chronic heart failure. The characteristics of patients eligible for participation in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial are described. Main outcome measure was the composite of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening heart failure. Presented in details are the research findings.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Ivabradine and Outcomes in Chronic Heart Failure (SHIFT): A Randomised Placebo-Controlled Study," by Karl Swedberg et al, in the September 11, 2010 issue.

Background: Elevated resting heart rate is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, particularly in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Heart rate is not monitored routinely in these patients. We hypothesized that routine monitoring of heart rate would increase its prognostic value in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.Methods: We analyzed the relationship between heart rate measurements and a range of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including hospitalization for worsening heart failure, in the pooled placebo-treated patients from the morBidity-mortality EvAlUaTion of the If inhibitor ivabradine in patients with coronary disease and left ventricULar dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL) trial and Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine (SHIFT) Trial, using standard and time-varying covariate Cox proportional hazards models. By adjusting for other prognostic factors, models were fitted for baseline heart rate alone or for time-updated heart rate (latest heart rate) alone or corrected for baseline heart rate or for immediate previous time-updated heart rate.Results: Baseline heart rate was strongly associated with all outcomes apart from hospitalization for myocardial infarction. Time-updated heart rate increased the strengths of associations for all outcomes. Adjustment for baseline heart rate or immediate previous time-updated heart rate modestly reduced the prognostic importance of time-updated heart rate. For hospitalization for worsening heart failure, each 5 beats/min increase in baseline heart rate and time-updated heart rate was associated with a 15% (95% confidence interval, 12-18) and 22% (confidence interval, 19-40) increase in risk, respectively. Even after correction, the prognostic value of time-updated heart rate remained greater.Conclusions: In patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, time-updated heart rate is more strongly related with adverse cardiovascular outcomes than baseline heart rate. Heart rate should be measured to assess cardiovascular risk at all assessments of patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]