Ivabradine and Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: This was a meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of ivabradine on the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) and its effect on the ventricular rate in patients with AF. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and other databases were searched for RCTs on ivabradine. Thirteen trials with 37,533 patients met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of AF was significantly higher in the ivabradine treatment group than in the control group [odds ratio (OR), 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-1.41], although it was reduced after cardiac surgery (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.23-2.12). Regarding left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), ivabradine increased the risk of AF in both LVEF >40% (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.24-1.63) and LVEF ≤40% subgroups (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.98-1.37). The risk of AF was increased by both small and large cumulative doses of ivabradine (small cumulative dose: OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 0.48-18.93; large cumulative dose: OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83-1.34). Furthermore, ivabradine may reduce the ventricular rate in patients with AF. In conclusion, we found that both large and small cumulative doses of ivabradine were associated with an increased incidence of AF, and the effect was more marked in the LVEF >40% subgroup. Nevertheless, ivabradine therapy is beneficial for the prevention of postoperative AF. Furthermore, ivabradine may be effective in controlling the ventricular rate in patients with AF, although more RCTs are needed to support this conclusion.

Torsadogenic Potential of HCN Channel Blocker Ivabradine Assessed in the Rabbit Proarrhythmia Model.

Torsadogenic effects of ivabradine, an inhibitor of hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channels, were assessed in an in vivo proarrhythmia model of acute atrioventricular block rabbit. Ivabradine at 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg/kg was intravenously administered to isoflurane-anesthetized rabbits (n = 5) in the stable idioventricular rhythm. Ivabradine at 0.01 and 0.1 mg/kg hardly affected the atrial and ventricular automaticity, QT interval, or the monophasic action potential duration of the ventricle. Additionally administred ivabradine at 1 mg/kg decreased the atrial and ventricular rate significantly but increased the QT interval and duration of the monophasic action potential. Meanwhile, torsade de pointes arrhythmias were detected in 1 out of 5 animals and in 2 out of 5 animals after the administration of 0.1 and 1 mg/kg, respectively. Importantly, torsade de pointes arrhythmias could be observed only in 2 rabbits showing more potent suppressive effects on ventricular automaticity. These results suggest that the torsadogenic potential of ivabradine may become evident when its expected bradycardic action appears more excessively.

Comparative effectiveness of metoprolol, ivabradine, and its combination in the management of inappropriate sinus tachycardia in coronary artery bypass graft patients.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) is an arrhythmic complication observed after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery which left untreated, commonly increases chances of postoperative stroke. The primary study objective was comparing effectiveness of beta blocker-metoprolol; a specific If blocker-ivabradine and its combination in patients who develop IST as a complication following CABG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An open-labeled, investigator initiated, clinical study was conducted on 150 patients who developed IST (heart rate [HR] >100 beats/min) following elective CABG surgery. The patients were randomized into three treatment groups. Group I - received ivabradine (5 mg), Group II - metoprolol (25 mg), and Group III - ivabradine (5 mg) and metoprolol (25 mg). Treatment was given orally, twice a day for 7 days in all the three groups postoperatively. Primary endpoints were comparative effectiveness in HR and blood pressure reduction following treatment. RESULTS: IST was diagnosed by an electrocardiogram (12-lead) considering morphological features of P-wave and with 32% increase from baseline HR in all the three groups. Compared to IST arrthymic rate, HR was reduced in all groups following respective treatment (P = 0.05). Reduction in HR was significant (P < 0.05) in combination group followed by ivabradine which was significantly greater than metoprolol treated group. None of the treatments clinically changed the systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure till discharge. No surgery/treatment-related complications were observed in any groups. CONCLUSION: Ivabradine stands as a pharmacological option for controlling HR and rhythm without associated side effects in postoperative CABG patients with IST.

Ivabradine use in pregnant women-treatment indications and pregnancy outcome: an evaluation of the German Embryotox database.

PURPOSE: Ivabradine has been approved for the treatment of chronic heart failure and chronic stable angina pectoris in Europe. Based on adverse outcomes of reproductive animal studies and the lack of human data, ivabradine is considered contraindicated during pregnancy. The aim of this observational study is to analyse ivabradine use before and during pregnancy. METHODS: We evaluated all ivabradine-related requests to the German Embryotox Institute from 2007 to 2019. Exposed pregnancies were analysed as to their outcome. RESULTS: Off-label use for supraventricular tachycardia was frequent in women of childbearing age. Of 38 prospectively ascertained pregnancies with ivabradine exposure and completed follow-up, 32 resulted in live births, 3 in spontaneous abortions, and 3 were electively terminated. One neonate presented with major birth defects (atrial septal defect and cleft palate). In 33/38 patients, ivabradine was discontinued after confirmation of pregnancy without cardiac deterioration and 5/38 women continued ivabradine throughout pregnancy. In addition, there were 3 retrospectively reported pregnancies including one major birth defect (tracheal atresia). CONCLUSION: This case series represents the largest cohort of ivabradine-exposed pregnancies, published so far. According to our findings, ivabradine appears not to be a major teratogen. However, established drugs of choice with strong evidence of low risk for the unborn should be preferred in women planning pregnancy. After inadvertent exposure during pregnancy or lack of treatment alternatives, fetal ultrasound for structural anomalies and growth restriction is recommended. In addition, close monitoring is necessary in pregnant women with supraventricular arrhythmias or cardiac disease.

Ivabradine in Cardiovascular Disease Management Revisited: a Review.

Ivabradine is a unique agent that is distinct from beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers as it reduces heart rate without affecting myocardial contractility or vascular tone. Ivabradine is a use-dependent inhibitor targeting the sinoatrial node. It is approved for use in the United States as an adjunct therapy for heart rate reduction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. In this scenario, ivabradine has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes due to reduction in heart failure readmissions. However, there has been conflicting evidence from prospective studies and randomized controlled trials for its use in stable ischemic heart disease regarding efficacy in symptom reduction and mortality benefit. Ivabradine may also play a role in the treatment of patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia, who often cannot tolerate beta-blockers and/or calcium channel blockers. In this review, we highlight the evidence for the nuances of using ivabradine in heart failure, stable ischemic heart disease, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia to raise awareness for its vital role in the treatment of select populations.

Practical instructions for using drugs in CT and MR cardiac imaging.

The progressive increase in numbers of noninvasive cardiac imaging examinations broadens the spectrum of knowledge radiologists are expected to acquire in the management of drugs during CT coronary angiography (CTCA) and cardiac MR (CMR) to improve image quality for optimal visualization and assessment of the coronary arteries and adequate MR functional analysis. Aim of this review is to provide an overview on different class of drugs (nitrate, beta-blockers, ivabradine, anxiolytic, adenosine, dobutamine, atropine, dipyridamole and regadenoson) that can be used in CTCA and CMR, illustrating their main indications, contraindications, efficacy, mechanism of action, metabolism, safety, side effects or complications, and providing advices in their use.

Impact of Hepatic CYP3A4 Ontogeny Functions on Drug-Drug Interaction Risk in Pediatric Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling: Critical Literature Review and Ivabradine Case Study.

Clinical assessment of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in children is not a common practice in drug development. Therefore, physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling can be beneficial for informing drug labeling. Using ivabradine and its metabolite (both cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme (CYP3A4) substrates), the objectives were (i) to scale ivabradine-metabolite adult PBPK/PD to pediatrics, (ii) to predict the DDIs with a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor, and (iii) to compare the sensitivity of children to DDIs using two CYP3A4 hepatic ontogeny functions: Salem and Upreti. A scaled parent-metabolite PBPK/PD model from adults to children satisfactorily predicted pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) in 74 children (0.5-18 years) regardless of CYP3A4 hepatic ontogeny function applied. However, using the Salem ontogeny, mean predicted parent and metabolite area under the concentration-time curve over 12 hours (AUC12h ) and heart rate change from baseline were 2-fold, 1.5-fold, and 1.4-fold higher in young children (0.5-3 years old) compared with Upreti ontogeny, respectively. Despite these differences, choice of appropriate hepatic CYP3A4 ontogeny was challenging due to sparse PK and PD data. Different sensitivity to ivabradine-ketoconazole DDIs was simulated in young children relative to adults depending on the choice of hepatic CYP3A4 ontogeny. Predicted ivabradine and metabolite AUCDDI /AUCcontrol were 2-fold lower in the youngest children (0.5-1 year old) compared with adults (Salem function). In contrast, the Upreti function predicted comparable ivabradine DDIs across all age groups, although predicted metabolite AUCDDI/ AUCcontrol was 1.3-fold higher between the youngest children and adults. In the case of PD, differences in predicted DDIs were minor across age groups and between both functions. Current work highlights the importance of careful consideration of hepatic CYP3A4 ontogeny function and implications on labeling recommendations in the pediatric population.

Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure is one of the most common medical conditions, affecting more than 23 million people worldwide. Despite established guideline-based, multidrug pharmacotherapy, chronic heart failure is still the cause of frequent hospitalisation, and about 50% die within five years of diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in individuals with chronic heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in March 2020. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any time or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in which adult participants diagnosed with chronic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either ivabradine or placebo/usual care/no treatment. We distinguished between type of heart failure (heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction) as well as between duration of ivabradine treatment (short term (< 6 months) or long term (≥ 6 months)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and checked data for accuracy. We calculated risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We completed a comprehensive 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were: mortality from cardiovascular causes; quality of life; time to first hospitalisation for heart failure during follow-up; and number of days spent in hospital due to heart failure during follow-up. Our secondary endpoints were: rate of serious adverse events; exercise capacity; and economic costs (narrative report). We assessed the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies (76 reports) involving a total of 19,628 participants (mean age 60.76 years, 69% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in trial design (type of heart failure) and outcome reporting and measurement. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high across the included studies, with insufficient detail provided to inform judgement in several cases. We were able to perform two meta-analyses focusing on participants with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and long-term ivabradine treatment. There was evidence of no difference between ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment for mortality from cardiovascular causes (RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.11; 3 studies; 17,676 participants; I2 = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found evidence of no difference in rate of serious adverse events amongst HFrEF participants randomised to receive long-term ivabradine compared with those randomised to placebo, usual care, or no treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00; 2 studies; 17,399 participants; I2 = 12%; moderate-certainty evidence). We were not able to perform meta-analysis for all other outcomes, and have low confidence in the findings based on the individual studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of no difference in cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events between long-term treatment with ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment in participants with heart failure with HFrEF. Nevertheless, due to indirectness (male predominance), the certainty of the available evidence is rated as moderate.

Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of ivabradine on outcomes important to patients with angina pectoris caused by coronary artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We included randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine versus placebo or no intervention for patients with angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease published prior to June 2020. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Cochrane methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and our eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. RESULTS: We included 47 randomised clinical trials enrolling 35 797 participants. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. Ivabradine compared with control did not have effects when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13), quality of life (standardised mean differences -0.05; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18) and myocardial infarction (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16). Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events after removal of outliers (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) as well as the following adverse events classified as serious: bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, photopsia, atrial fibrillation and hypertension. Ivabradine also increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.16). Ivabradine might have a statistically significant effect when assessing angina frequency (mean difference (MD) 2.06; 95% CI 0.82 to 3.30) and stability (MD 1.48; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.89), but the effect sizes seemed minimal and possibly without any relevance to patients, and we identified several methodological limitations, questioning the validity of these results. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support that ivabradine offers significant benefits on patient important outcomes, but rather seems to increase the risk of serious adverse events such as atrial fibrillation and non-serious adverse events. Based on current evidence, guidelines need reassessment and the use of ivabradine for angina pectoris should be reconsidered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018112082.

Ivabradine-Induced Torsade de Pointes in Patients with Heart Failure Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Ivabradine is a selective inhibitor of the sinoatrial node "funny" current, prolonging the slow diastolic depolarization. As it has the ability to block the heart rate selectively, it is more effective at a faster heart rate. It is recommended for the treatment of heart failure reduced ejection fraction in the presence of beta-blocker therapy for the further reduction of the heart rate. However, previous reports have shown the association of Torsade de pointes (TdP) with concurrent use of ivabradine and drugs resulting in QT prolongation or blockage of the metabolic breakdown of ivabradine. In this article, we report two cases of patients with heart failure reduced ejection fraction who developed TdP after ivabradine use. Our report highlights the need to exercise caution with the administration of ivabradine in the presence of a reduced repolarization reserve, such as QT prolongation or metabolic insufficiency.

Ivabradine and endothelium: an update.

Ivabradine is a pure heart-rate lowering drug that is nowadays used, accordingly to the last ESC Guidelines, to reduce mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and in symptomatic patiens with inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Moreover, interesting effect of ivabradine on endothelial and myocardial function and on oxidative stress and inflamation pathways are progressively emerging. The aim of this paper is to highlight newer evidences about ivabradine effect (and consequently possible future application of the drug) in pathological settings different from guidelines-based clinical practice.

Ivabradine drug utilization study in five European countries: A multinational, retrospective, observational study to assess effectiveness of risk-minimization measures.

PURPOSE: This drug utilization study of ivabradine evaluated prescriber compliance with the new risk minimization measures (RMMs), communicated starting 2014 following preliminary results from the SIGNIFY study. METHODS: This was a multinational (five European countries) chart review study with two study periods: pre-RMM and post-RMM. Patients initiating ivabradine for chronic stable angina pectoris in routine clinical practice were identified across general practitioners and specialists. The primary outcome analysis evaluated the compliance with the new RMMs, ie, use in patients with a heart rate greater than or equal to 70 bpm at initiation, no doses higher than those recommended in the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) at initiation and during 6 months of follow-up, and no concomitant use of verapamil or diltiazem. RESULTS: Overall, 711 and 506 eligible patients were included in the pre-RMM and post-RMM periods, respectively. The percentage of patients prescribed ivabradine according to the new RMMs increased significantly in the post-RMM period (70.6% and 78.4% in the pre- and post-RMM periods respectively; P value = .0035). The compliance to RMMs increased for all the criteria assessed independently: the proportions of patients with (a) heart rate ≥ 70 bpm at initiation (79.4% and 85.2%, respectively; P value = .0141), (b) no dose higher than the SmPC doses at initiation and during follow-up (92.8% and 94.1%, respectively; P value = .3957), and (c) no concomitance with verapamil or diltiazem (96.1% and 99.2%, respectively; P value = .0007). CONCLUSIONS: The RMMs for ivabradine were well implemented across the five participating European countries confirming a favorable benefit-risk balance of ivabradine in chronic stable angina pectoris.

Efficacy and Safety of Ivabradine in Japanese Patients With Chronic Heart Failure　- J-SHIFT Study.

BACKGROUND: Increased heart rate (HR) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF). Ivabradine, anIfinhibitor, improved outcomes in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the SHIFT study. We evaluated its efficacy and safety in Japanese HFrEF patients in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study: the J-SHIFT study. The main objective was to confirm a hazard ratio of <1 in the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospital admission for worsening HF.Methods and Results:Patients with NYHA functional class II-IV, left ventricular EF ≤35%, and resting HR ≥75 beats/min in sinus rhythm under optimal medical therapy received ivabradine (n=127) or placebo (n=127). Mean reduction in resting HR was significantly greater in the ivabradine group (15.2 vs. 6.1 beats/min, P<0.0001). However, symptomatic bradycardia did not occur. A total of 26 (20.5%) patients in the ivabradine group and 37 (29.1%) patients in the placebo group had the primary endpoint event (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.40-1.11, P=0.1179) during median follow-up of 589 days. Mild phosphenes were reported in 8 (6.3%) patients in the ivabradine group and 4 (3.1%) patients in the placebo group (P=0.3760). CONCLUSIONS: The J-SHIFT study supported the efficacy and safety of ivabradine for Japanese HFrEF patients, in accord with the SHIFT study.

Ivabradine for treatment of heart failure.

INTRODUCTION: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with a worse outcome. Heart rate (HR) is related to outcome in HFrEF. Ivabradine selectively inhibits If (funny) channels in a concentration-dependent manner reducing HR. AREAS COVERED: The effects of ivabradine in HF were reviewed. The SHIFT trial results indicated that ivabradine improves chronic HFrEF outcomes, whereas published data suggest that amiodarone, digoxin, or verapamil may not be safe or the safety is controversial in HFrEF patients. In the CONSTATHE-DHF study, ivabradine reduced HR and improved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, LV diastolic functions, and right ventricle function in acute decompensated HF (ADHF). In chagasic patients, ivabradine reduced HR and a trend toward reduction in all-cause death was observed with ivabradine (p = 0.07). In children with HFrEF, ivabradine increased NYHA functional class. The most common side effects with ivabradine are bradycardia, atrial fibrillation, and phosphenes. Ivabradine was approved for HFrEF treatment by the EMA and FDA and seems to be cost-effective in HFrEF treatment. Ivabradine is indicated for HFrEF by the ESC HF Guidelines (IIa) and by the 2016 ACC/AHA/HFSA Guidelines (IIa-B-R). EXPERT OPINION: Published evidences demonstrate that ivabradine improves the outcome of chronic HFrEF and it seems to have a promising role in ADHF.

Adverse Drug Reactions to Guideline-Recommended Heart Failure Drugs in Women: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to summarize all available evidence on sex differences in adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to heart failure (HF) medication. BACKGROUND: Women are more likely to experience ADRs than men, and these reactions may negatively affect women's immediate and long-term health. HF in particular is associated with increased ADR risk because of the high number of comorbidities and older age. However, little is known about ADRs in women with HF who are treated with guideline-recommended drugs. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE was performed to collect all available information on ADRs to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ß-blockers, angiotensin II receptor blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, ivabradine, and digoxin in both women and men with HF. RESULTS: The search identified 155 eligible records, of which only 11 (7%) reported ADR data for women and men separately. Sex-stratified reporting of ADRs did not increase over the last decades. Six of the 11 studies did not report sex differences. Three studies reported a higher risk of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-related ADRs in women, 1 study showed higher digoxin-related mortality risk for women, and 1 study reported a higher risk of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist-related ADRs in men. No sex differences in ADRs were reported for angiotensin II receptor blockers and ß-blockers. Sex-stratified data were not available for ivabradine. CONCLUSIONS: These results underline the scarcity of ADR data stratified by sex. The study investigators call for a change in standard scientific practice toward reporting of ADR data for women and men separately.

Beta-blocker target dosing and tolerability in a dedicated heart failure clinic in Johannesburg.

BACKGROUND: Despite the significant clinical benefits of beta-blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), prescription for and adherence to these agents is reported to be poor. There are few data on the use and tolerance of beta-blocker therapy in patients with HFrEF in South Africa and it is unknown whether these patients would benefit from further heart rate-lowering therapy. METHODS: Data from all patients with HFrEF attending the heart failure clinic of Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital from January 2000 to December 2014 were retrospectively collected. We first determined the rates of beta-blocker intolerance in this population and then categorised the patients according to their most recent dose of beta-blocker (low, moderate or target dose) in order to identify factors associated with beta-blocker intolerance. Lastly, we used the data to identify patients who would be suitable for further treatment with heart rate-lowering therapy. RESULTS: Five hundred patients, with a median follow up of 58.7 months, were identified during the study period. Black South Africans constituted the majority (66.4%) and most patients had HFrEF due to hypertension (32.8%). At the last recorded clinic visit at the end of the study period, 489 patients (97.8%) were taking a beta-blocker with 59.8% prescribed a beta-blocker at target dose. Consistent with previous data, bradycardia was the commonest cause for failing to reach target beta-blocker dose. Only 61 (12%) patients were on no (n = 11) or low (n = 50) dose of beta-blocker at final clinic visit. As per current guidelines, only 10.6% (n = 53) of this cohort of patients would qualify for further treatment with heart rate-lowering therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In a dedicated heart failure clinic in South Africa, beta-blockers were well-tolerated in the treatment of HFrEF. The potential role of specific heart rate-lowering therapy in patients treated adequately with heart failure medication and proper up-titration of beta-blockers is relatively small.

The effects of nifedipine and ivabradine on the functionality of the early rat embryonic heart. Are these drugs a risk in early human pregnancy?

BACKGROUND: When the human heart begins its earliest contractions from day 21, it lacks a functional autonomic nerve supply. Instead, contractions are generated by regular calcium transients later augmented by the funny current (If ) produced by sinoatrial-like cells. This study examined effects of blocking these currents in the early rat embryonic heart. METHODS: Rat embryos were incubated in vitro with either the calcium channel blocker nifedipine and/or the funny current (If ) blocker ivabradine for 1 hr to examine the effects of these drugs on the activity of the embryonic heart. RESULTS: On gestational day (GD) 10, nifedipine (0.45-1.8 µM) caused asystole at high concentrations (8/10 embryos at 1.8 µM and 3/10 embryos at 0.9 µM) and markedly increased embryonic heart rate (EHR) in all surviving embryos but likely reduced blood flow due to weak contractions. Ivabradine (1.5 µM) caused a 29% reduction in EHR in GD 10 embryos and a greater than 50% reduction in EHR for GD 11-14 embryos. Combined exposure to both nifedipine and ivabradine resulted in an additive effect. The increased EHR due to nifedipine was reduced by the ivabradine. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that exposure to nifedipine in human pregnancy 3-4 weeks postfertilization may cause a direct effect on the embryonic heart resulting in reduced blood flow leading to abnormal heart and/or blood vessel development and/or embryonic death. Accidental exposure to ivabradine in the organogenic period would be expected to cause embryonic bradycardia, hypoxia, malformations, and embryonic death. This drug is currently contraindicated in pregnancy.

The effect of ivabradine therapy on heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Ivabradine is currently indicated to lower heart rate in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) patients. However its effect apart from beta-blockers is not clear. Aim of the review To study the additional effect of ivabradine, apart from the effect of beta-blockers, on cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization due to HF and heart rate in HFrEF population. Method Electronic searches were conducted up to June 2016 to include randomized controlled trials where ivabradine was compared to a control group. Relative risks RRs and their 95% confidence intervals (CI 95%) were pooled and the random and fixed effect were used to summarize the results according to heterogeneity levels. Heterogeneity among studies was measured by the I-squared statistic Results Of 1790 studies, seven met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and meta-analysis. The population consisted of 17,747 patients. Risk of bias was generally high for beta-blocker doses lower than recommended. Interventions lasted 1.5-22.9 months and pooled relative risks RR (95%) for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death and hospitalization for HF were 0.98 (0.90-1.06); 0.99 (0.91-1.08); and 0.87 (0.68-1.12) respectively. Heart rate (CI 95%) decreased by 8.7 (6.37-11.03) beats per minute with ivabradine compared to the control group. Subgroup analysis by beta-blocker dose showed that for patients on recommended treatment (at least 50% of the beta-blocker target dose), heart rate (CI 95%) decreased by 4.70 (3.67-5.73), whereas for patients not on recommended treatment or with unreported dose, heart rate decreased by 8.60 (8.13-9.08). Conclusion Ivabradine significantly reduced heart rate and its additional effect on heart rate appears to be inversely correlated with the dose of beta-blocker. It showed no significant effect for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death and hospitalization due to HF. Unreported beta-blocker doses and beta-blocker doses lower than recommended limited the conclusions.