4.3 Article

Effectiveness of Ivabradine Treatment in Different Subpopulations with Stable Angina in Clinical Practice: A Pooled Analysis of Observational Studies

Journal

CARDIOLOGY
Volume 135, Issue 3, Pages 141-150

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000447443

Keywords

Stable angina pectoris; Subpopulation; Heart rate; Ivabradine; Pooled analysis; Clinical practice; Observational studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The efficacy of ivabradine has been demonstrated in different subpopulations of stable angina patients in randomized clinical trials. This study explored its effectiveness in subpopulations seen in clinical practice as they often differ from those of randomized trials. Methods: Data were pooled from three German observational studies with similar inclusion criteria (stable angina and heart rate >= 60 bpm). All patients received 2.5, 5, or 7.5 mg b.i.d. of ivabradine for 4 months, with or without concomitant beta-blocker. Anti anginal effectiveness was analyzed in subpopulations defined by gender, age, heart rate, angina severity, use of concomitant beta-blocker, previous percutaneous coronary intervention procedure, and comorbidities (including previous myocardial infarction and diabetes). Results:Treatment data were available on 8,555 patients, where therapy with ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction in the frequency of angina attacks and consumption of short-acting nitrates of 87%. Effectiveness was maintained in all investigated subpopulations, with a reduction in antianginal parameters of 82-90%. Clinical status (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class) and quality of life were also improved. Ivabradine was well tolerated in all subgroups. Conclusions: Ivabradine is effective and safe in all subpopulations of angina patients seen in clinical practice, independent of age, comorbidities, and use of beta-blocker. (C) 2016 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available