Efficacy of early initiation of ivabradine treatment in patients with acute heart failure: rationale and design of SHIFT-AHF trial.

AIMS: Elevated heart rate (HR) in heart failure (HF) is associated with worse outcomes, particularly in acute HF (AHF). HR reduction with ivabradine reduces cardiovascular events in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction. The present trial aimed to test the hypothesis that the early HR reduction using ivabradine improves clinical outcomes in patients with AHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: SHIFT-AHF is a prospective, multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivabradine when adding to standard therapy in AHF patients (SHIFT-AHF). The trial will include 674 AHF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < 45% and New York Heart Association functional classes III-IV. Participants were enrolled from March 2020 and will be followed up until December 2022. Patients are randomized to treatment with ivabradine or placebo (randomization 1:1). After allocation, the dose of ivabradine is titrated according to HR. Six months' follow-up and three control visits (7, 90, and 180 days after enrolment) are required for every participant. Assessment involves clinical examination, laboratory tests, echocardiography, electrocardiography, heart rhythm, cardiac function, and quality of life. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality or re-admission due to worsening HF. Secondary endpoints include the assessments of cardiac remodelling, cardiac functional capacity, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The SHIFT-AHF trial will shed further light on the role of early HR reduction using ivabradine in patients with AHF.

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers on cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Multiple trials over the past several years have examined the effects of both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of left ventricular dysfunction, both acutely after myocardial infarction and in chronic heart failure. Yet, there is still confusion regarding the relative efficacy of rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition. Our study was conducted to assess efficacy of ACEIs and ARBs in reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in heart failure patients. METHODS: We included randomized clinical trials compared ACEIs and ARBs treatment (any dose or type) with placebo treatment, no treatment, or other anti-HF drugs treatment, reporting cardiovascular or total mortality with an observation period of at least 12 months. Data sources included Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Dichotomous outcome data from individual trials were analyzed using the risk ratio measure and its 95%CI with random-effects/ fixed-effects models. We performed meta-regression analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity. All-cause mortality and CV mortality were thought to be the main outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 47,662 subjects were included with a mean/median follow-up ranged from 12 weeks to 4.5 years. Of all 38 studies, 32 compared ACEIs with control therapy (included 13 arms that compared ACEIs with placebo, 10 arms in which the comparator was active treatment and 9 arms that compared ACEIs with ARBs), and six studies compared ARBs with placebo. ACEIs treatment in patients with HF reduced all-cause mortality to 11% (risk ratio (RR): 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-0.96, p = 0.001) and the corresponding value for cardiovascular mortality was 14% (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.78-0.94, p = 0.001). However, ARBs had no beneficial effect on reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. In head-to-head analysis, ACEIs was not superior to ARBs for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: In HF patients, ACEIs, but not ARBs reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular deaths. Thus, ACEIs should be considered as first-line therapy to limit excess mortality and morbidity in this population.

Angiotensin System Blockade Combined With Calcium Channel Blockers Is Superior to Other Combinations in Cardiovascular Protection With Similar Blood Pressure Reduction: A Meta-Analysis in 20,451 Hypertensive Patients.

The authors aimed to investigate the superiority of angiotensin system blockade (angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) plus a calcium channel blocker (CCB) (A+C) over other combination therapies in antihypertensive treatment. A meta-analysis in 20,451 hypertensive patients from eight randomized controlled trials was conducted to compare the A+C treatment with other combination therapies in terms of blood pressure (BP) reduction, clinical outcomes, and adverse events. The results showed that BP reduction did not differ significantly among the A+C therapy and other combination therapies in systolic and diastolic BP (P=.87 and P=.56, respectively). However, A+C therapy, compared with other combination therapies, achieved a significantly lower incidence of cardiovascular composite endpoints, including cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke (risk ratio [RR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.91; P<.001), but similar all-cause mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.04; P=.15) and stroke rates (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.04; P=.09). Moreover, A+C therapy yielded a 4.21 mL/min/1.73 m(2) lower estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction than other combinations (P<.001). Finally, A+C therapy showed a similar incidence of adverse events as other combination therapies (P=.34) but presented a significantly lower incidence of serious adverse events (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P=.03). In conclusion, A+C therapy is superior to other combinations of antihypertensive treatment as it shows a lower incidence of cardiovascular events and adverse events, while it has similar effects in lowering BP and preserving renal function.

Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability: a meta-analysis of 77,299 patients.

In recent clinical investigations, visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure (SBP) variability was proven as a predictor of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. However, inconsistent results exist in this association. A meta-analysis of 13 prospective studies was conducted to evaluate the prognostic value of visit-to-visit SBP variability by different parameters in 77,299 patients with a mean follow-up of 6.3 years. The pooled age- and mean SBP-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality were 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.04; P<.001) per 1-mm Hg increase in SBP standard deviation (SD) and 1.04 (1.02-1.06, P<.001) per 1% in SBP coefficient of variation, and the corresponding values of cardiovascular mortality were 1.10 (1.02-1.17, P<.001) and 1.01 (0.99-1.03, P=.32), respectively. Moreover, a 1-mm Hg increase in SD was significantly associated with stroke, with an HR of 1.02 (1.01-1.03, P<.001). Visit-to-visit SBP variability, independent of age and mean SBP, is a predictor of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality and stroke.