English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

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).

Beneficial effects of ivabradine in patients with heart failure, low ejection fraction, and heart rate above 77 b.p.m.