ReviewHealth science reports2026
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ivabradine vs. Beta Blockers in Heart Transplant Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 2026. 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.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Elevated resting heart rate in heart transplant (HTx) recipients due to graft denervation is associated with adverse outcomes. Ivabradine and beta blockers are commonly used for heart rate control post-HTx, but their comparative effectiveness and safety remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivabradine versus beta blockers in heart transplant recipients. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in April 2025 across PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar. Original studies, including cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivabradine to beta blockers in heart transplant patients were considered eligible. The primary outcome was mean heart rate. Secondary outcomes were left ventricular mass, left ventricular mass index, and ejection fraction; adverse events (phosphenes, dizziness, fatigue, sepsis); and mortality and survival. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2 for the randomized trial and ROBINS-I for the non-randomized studies, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4. Results: Four studies, including one RCT and three cohort studies, met the inclusion criteria. Ivabradine demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in left ventricular mass index at 24 months (MD -8.82; 95% CI -14.05 to -3.59; Conclusion: Ivabradine may offer improved heart rate control and favourable changes in left ventricular mass index compared with beta blockers in heart transplant recipients, with a comparable safety and mortality profile. Given the small evidence base, the predominance of observational studies, and the substantial heterogeneity observed across several outcomes, these findings should be regarded as exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Further large-scale RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings and guide clinical decision-making.
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.