Ivabradine for the Therapy of Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- Author:
Christina KALVELAGE
1
;
Christian STOPPE
;
Nikolaus MARX
;
Gernot MARX
;
Carina BENSTOEM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Korean Circulation Journal 2020;50(9):773-786
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background and Objectives:Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the number one cause of death worldwide. The If channel inhibitor ivabradine serves as second line medication for the CAD leading symptom angina pectoris. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the existing evidence of ivabradine in angina pectoris.
Methods:We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science (September 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ivabradine versus placebo, standard therapy (ST) or other anti-anginal drugs. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and performed data extraction. We completed a ‘risk of bias’ assessment for all studies and assessed quality of the trial evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We meta-analysed data were applicable and calculated mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios using a random-effects model.
Results:A total of 11 RCTs (n=16,039) were included. Compared to placebo/ST, we found significant effects on the frequency of hospitalisation in a small cohort (n=90; hazard ratio [HR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04, −0.92; p=0.04), but no effects on cardiovascular mortality (n=19,102; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.28; p=0.25) or the frequency of angina pectoris episodes (n=167; weighted MD, −1.06; 95% CI, −2.74, −0.61; p=0.21).
Conclusions:The present work makes an important contribution to optimal patient care in angina pectoris by complementing the current European Society of Cardiology guideline—recommending class IIa with evidence level B—decisively with 8 further studies.
