Cargando…

Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of ivabradine on outcomes important to patients with angina pectoris caused by coronary artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We included randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine versus placebo or no intervention for patients with angina...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maagaard, Mathias, Nielsen, Emil Eik, Sethi, Naqash Javaid, Ning, Liang, Yang, Si-hong, Gluud, Christian, Jakobsen, Janus Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7552833/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33046592
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2020-001288
_version_ 1783593483304435712
author Maagaard, Mathias
Nielsen, Emil Eik
Sethi, Naqash Javaid
Ning, Liang
Yang, Si-hong
Gluud, Christian
Jakobsen, Janus Christian
author_facet Maagaard, Mathias
Nielsen, Emil Eik
Sethi, Naqash Javaid
Ning, Liang
Yang, Si-hong
Gluud, Christian
Jakobsen, Janus Christian
author_sort Maagaard, Mathias
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of ivabradine on outcomes important to patients with angina pectoris caused by coronary artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We included randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine versus placebo or no intervention for patients with angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease published prior to June 2020. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Cochrane methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and our eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. RESULTS: We included 47 randomised clinical trials enrolling 35 797 participants. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. Ivabradine compared with control did not have effects when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13), quality of life (standardised mean differences −0.05; 95% CI −0.11 to 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18) and myocardial infarction (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16). Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events after removal of outliers (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) as well as the following adverse events classified as serious: bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, photopsia, atrial fibrillation and hypertension. Ivabradine also increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.16). Ivabradine might have a statistically significant effect when assessing angina frequency (mean difference (MD) 2.06; 95% CI 0.82 to 3.30) and stability (MD 1.48; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.89), but the effect sizes seemed minimal and possibly without any relevance to patients, and we identified several methodological limitations, questioning the validity of these results. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support that ivabradine offers significant benefits on patient important outcomes, but rather seems to increase the risk of serious adverse events such as atrial fibrillation and non-serious adverse events. Based on current evidence, guidelines need reassessment and the use of ivabradine for angina pectoris should be reconsidered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018112082.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7552833
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75528332020-10-21 Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis Maagaard, Mathias Nielsen, Emil Eik Sethi, Naqash Javaid Ning, Liang Yang, Si-hong Gluud, Christian Jakobsen, Janus Christian Open Heart Meta-Analysis OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of ivabradine on outcomes important to patients with angina pectoris caused by coronary artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We included randomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine versus placebo or no intervention for patients with angina pectoris due to coronary artery disease published prior to June 2020. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, Cochrane methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and our eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. RESULTS: We included 47 randomised clinical trials enrolling 35 797 participants. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. Ivabradine compared with control did not have effects when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13), quality of life (standardised mean differences −0.05; 95% CI −0.11 to 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18) and myocardial infarction (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16). Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events after removal of outliers (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) as well as the following adverse events classified as serious: bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, photopsia, atrial fibrillation and hypertension. Ivabradine also increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.16). Ivabradine might have a statistically significant effect when assessing angina frequency (mean difference (MD) 2.06; 95% CI 0.82 to 3.30) and stability (MD 1.48; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.89), but the effect sizes seemed minimal and possibly without any relevance to patients, and we identified several methodological limitations, questioning the validity of these results. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support that ivabradine offers significant benefits on patient important outcomes, but rather seems to increase the risk of serious adverse events such as atrial fibrillation and non-serious adverse events. Based on current evidence, guidelines need reassessment and the use of ivabradine for angina pectoris should be reconsidered. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018112082. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7552833/ /pubmed/33046592 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2020-001288 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Meta-Analysis
Maagaard, Mathias
Nielsen, Emil Eik
Sethi, Naqash Javaid
Ning, Liang
Yang, Si-hong
Gluud, Christian
Jakobsen, Janus Christian
Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
title Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
title_full Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
title_fullStr Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
title_short Effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
title_sort effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in patients with angina pectoris: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
topic Meta-Analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7552833/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33046592
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2020-001288
work_keys_str_mv AT maagaardmathias effectsofaddingivabradinetousualcareinpatientswithanginapectorisasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT nielsenemileik effectsofaddingivabradinetousualcareinpatientswithanginapectorisasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT sethinaqashjavaid effectsofaddingivabradinetousualcareinpatientswithanginapectorisasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT ningliang effectsofaddingivabradinetousualcareinpatientswithanginapectorisasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT yangsihong effectsofaddingivabradinetousualcareinpatientswithanginapectorisasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT gluudchristian effectsofaddingivabradinetousualcareinpatientswithanginapectorisasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis
AT jakobsenjanuschristian effectsofaddingivabradinetousualcareinpatientswithanginapectorisasystematicreviewofrandomisedclinicaltrialswithmetaanalysisandtrialsequentialanalysis