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

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

Effects of selective heart rate reduction with ivabradine on left ventricular remodelling and function: results from the SHIFT echocardiography substudy

Eligible patients had chronic HF and systolic dysfunction [LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 35], were in sinus rhythm, and had resting heart rate epsilon 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/m(2); 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/m(2), 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/m(2)) at baseline (HR 1.62, 95 CI 1.032.56, P 0.04). Patients with the largest relative reductions in LVESVI had the lowest event rates