Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27475447›Full record

ReviewCardiovascular drugs and therapy2016

The Role of Ivabradine in the Management of Angina Pectoris.

Alessandra Giavarini, Ranil de Silva

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alessandra GiavariniNIHR Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ranil de SilvaNIHR Biomedical Research Unit, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. r.desilva@imperial.ac.uk.
Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stable angina pectoris affects 2-4 % of the population in Western countries and entails an annual risk of death and nonfatal myocardial infarction of 1-2 % and 3 %, respectively. Heart rate (HR) is linearly related to myocardial oxygen consumption and coronary blood flow, both at rest and during stress. HR reduction is a key target for the prevention of ischemia/angina and is an important mechanism of action of drugs which are recommended as first line therapy for the treatment of angina in clinical guidelines. However, many patients are often unable to tolerate the doses of beta blocker or non-dihydropyridine calcium antagonists required to achieve the desired symptom control. The selective pacemaker current inhibitor ivabradine was developed as a drug for the management of patients with angina pectoris, through its ability to reduce HR specifically. The available data suggest that ivabradine is a well-tolerated and effective anti-anginal agent and it is recommended as a second-line agent for relief of angina in guidelines. However, recent clinical trials of ivabradine have failed to show prognostic benefit and have raised potential concerns about safety. This article will review the available evidence base for the current role of ivabradine in the management of patients with symptomatic angina pectoris in the context of stable coronary artery disease.

Indexed as

Angina PectorisBenzazepinesCardiovascular AgentsDrug InteractionsDrug Therapy, CombinationHeart RateHumansIvabradineBenzazepinesCardiovascular AgentsIvabradineAngina pectorisIf current inhibitorIvabradineStable coronary artery disease

Identifiers

PMID27475447
PMCPMC5042979
OpenAlexW2481087274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.