ArticleCureus2021
Comparison of Efficacy of Ivabradine With Traditional Therapy in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure patients usually present with disease exacerbation that overburdens the hospitals and also increases the risk of mortality with increased heart rate being the main issue. Consideration is being given to drugs for sole heart rate control in addition to conventional therapy.
objectiveTo compare the outcomes of ivabradine to traditional treatment in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. METHODOLOGY: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Cardiology, Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar from November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. Patients aged 30-65 years of age and of either gender with heart failure were enrolled in the study. Patients were screened for New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and were enrolled into one of the two groups. In group 1, patients were started on traditional treatment, while group 2 patients were given ivabradine as an add-on therapy. Follow-up was made at the end of the second month for evaluation of the outcomes.
resultsEach group had 119 patients, with a mean age of 58.05±4.98 years. Group 1, consisted of 61.3% of the patients in NYHA 3, while 38.65% were in NYHA 4. In group 2, NYHA 3 and NYHA 4 patients were 59.6% and 40.3%, respectively. Upon follow-up, there were greater improvements in group 2 as compared to group 1 based on NYHA classifications, with NYHA 2 [47.05% (group 2) vs. 13.44% (group 1)], NYHA 3 [42.85% (group 2) vs. 61.34% (group 1)] and NYHA 4 [10.08% (group 2) vs. 25.21% (group 1)], p < 0.05.
conclusionsObtaining a more optimal heart rate with ivabradine in patients with congestive heart failure is reflected in an improvement in NYHA classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.