ReviewCureus2025
Effect of Ivabradine on Heart Failure: A 2024 Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Precision Use of Ivabradine in Contemporary HFrEF: From Heart Rate Reduction to Physiological Optimization.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ivabradine is thought to be highly effective in the treatment of heart failure through its effects on heart rate (HR) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, its effectiveness on other clinical outcomes and cardiovascular parameters is undetermined. Therefore, a meta-analysis of existing clinical studies was conducted to determine the effectiveness of ivabradine in treating chronic heart failure. A primary search was employed using five databases, namely, PubMed, Medline, Clinical Trials, Embase, and Cochrane. A meta-analysis was conducted on 11 studies meeting the inclusion criterion, including randomized control trials of chronic heart failure patients receiving ivabradine versus standard care or placebo treatment. Non-human studies and studies without echocardiogram measures of ejection fraction, a placebo group, or follow-up data on readmission or mortality were restricted from the study; however, there were no restrictions on the date or duration of treatment. The outcomes measuring the effectiveness of the drug included cardiovascular mortality, hospital readmissions, and exercise capacity, in addition to changes in HR, LVEF, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire, N-terminal pro-hormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, and left ventricular volume. The reduction in bradycardia and atrial fibrillation was also determined. Subsequently, data from 11 randomized clinical trials including 1,687 study participants, 862 in the ivabradine treatment group, and 825 in the placebo group were included in the analysis. No significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality or hospital readmissions was noted with the use of ivabradine compared to the placebo group (relative risk (RR)), 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI)), 0.15, 4.14) and (RR, 0.53 (95 % CI, 0.20, 1.22), respectively. In 10 of these trials, there was a significant reduction in the HR of treatment participants (mean difference (MD)), - 11.7 (95 % CI, -12.88, -10.51). There was also a beneficial association noted between LVEF and ivabradine participants (MD, 3.03 (95 % CI, 2.07, 3.98). There was a significant reduction in NT-proBNP levels (MD, -384 (95 % CI, -581.68, -187.72) in ivabradine patients, but no significant change was noted in BNP levels in this group (MD, -72.32; 95 % CI, -263.67, 119.0) The risk reduction in bradycardia and atrial fibrillation among ivabradine users versus non-users were both insignificant (RR, 1.62 (95 % CI, 0.024, 4.83) and RR, 0.93 (95 % CI, 0.014, 12.51), respectively). Conclusively, heart failure patients taking ivabradine demonstrated significant improvements in LVEF and reduction in HRs compared to the standard treatment group. No significant changes in other cardiovascular or clinical outcomes in Ivabradine users were confirmed in this meta-analysis.
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.