ArticleClinical cardiology2022
Initiating ivabradine during hospitalization in patients with acute heart failure: A real-world experience in China.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the applicability of ivabradine in acute heart failure.Clinical cardiology · 2024Article
- Therapeutic Use and Molecular Aspects of Ivabradine in Cardiac Remodeling: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Initiating ivabradine during hospitalization in patients with acute heart failure: A real-world experience in China.Clinical cardiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInitiating ivabradine in acute heart failure (HF) is still controversial. HYPOTHESIS: Ivabradine might be effective to be added in acute but hemodynamically stable HF.
methodsA retrospective cohort of hemodynamically stable acute HF patients was enrolled from January 2018 to January 2020 and followed until July 2020. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for HF. Secondary endpoints included heart rate (HR), cardiac function measured by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and adverse events, which were compared between patients with or without ivabradine.
resultsA total of 126 patients were enrolled (50 males, median age 54 years, 81% with decompensated HF, median follow-up of 9 months). In patients treated with ivabradine, although baseline HRs were higher than the reference group (96 vs. 80 bpm), they were comparable after 3 months; more patients tolerated high doses of β-blockers (27% vs. 7.9%), improved to NYHA class I function (55.6% vs. 23.8%) and exhibited normal LVEFs (37.8% vs. 14.3%) than the reference group (all p < .05). Ivabradine was associated with a significant reduction of rehospitalization for HF than the reference group (25.4% vs.61.9%), with longer event-free survival times (hazard ratio: 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.79), and was related with primary endpoints negatively (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28-0.91) (all p < .05).
conclusionIn patients with acute but hemodynamically stable HF, ivabradine may significantly reduce HR, improve cardiac function, and reduce HF rehospitalization.
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.