ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2025
Ivabradine in the treatment of congenital junctional ectopic tachycardia: A systematic review.
Article in World journal of cardiology, 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.
- Successful Treatment With Ivabradine for Junctional Ectopic Tachycardia-Induced Cardiomyopathy With Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCongenital junctional ectopic tachycardia (CJET) is a rare but life-threatening arrhythmia in neonates and infants, often refractory to conventional antiarrhythmic therapy. Ivabradine, a selective inhibitor of hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated channels, has emerged as a promising drug for CJET management.
aimTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivabradine in the management of CJET. Specifically, this study aims to analyze the dosing strategies, treatment outcomes, and the role of ivabradine as monotherapy or adjunct therapy in patients who have previously received other antiarrhythmic medications. Additionally, this review seeks to assess the impact of ivabradine on heart rate (HR) control, rhythm conversion, and its overall safety profile to provide evidence-based insights into its clinical use for CJET management.
methodsThis systematic review aims to evaluate the outcomes of ivabradine, either as monotherapy or as an adjunctive therapy, in the treatment of CJET. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple electronic databases to identify relevant studies investigating the use of ivabradine in CJET. Stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to ensure the inclusion of high-quality, peer-reviewed studies. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers.
resultsTen studies, comprising 6 case reports, 3 case series, and 1 cohort study, met the inclusion criteria. Ivabradine doses ranged from 0.025 to 0.28 mg/kg/dose, administered either as monotherapy or in combination with various antiarrhythmic medications. Overall, ivabradine demonstrated promising results in achieving HR control, conversion to sinus rhythm, or stabilization of junctional rhythm. No significant adverse effects related to ivabradine were reported.
conclusionThe available evidence suggests that ivabradine may be an effective adjunctive therapy or, in some cases, a potential monotherapy for the management of CJET, particularly in cases refractory to traditional antiarrhythmic medications. However, the current evidence is limited by the small sample sizes and retrospective nature of the included studies. Well-designed prospective studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are warranted to further elucidate the role of ivabradine in CJET management.
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.