-
Cureus Aug 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Since... (Review)
Review
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Since then, the disease has spread globally, leading to the ongoing pandemic. It can cause severe respiratory illness; however, many cases of pericarditis have also been reported. This systematic review aims to recognize the clinical features of pericarditis and myopericarditis in COVID-19 patients. Google Scholar, Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting "Coronavirus" or "COVID" and "Peri-myocarditis," "heart," or "retrospective." Case reports and retrospective studies published from May 2020 to February 2021 were reviewed. In total, 33 studies on pericarditis, myopericarditis, and pericardial infusion were included in this review. COVID-19 pericarditis affected adult patients at any age. The incidence is more common in males, with a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. Chest pain (60%), fever (51%), and shortness of breath (51%) were the most reported symptoms, followed by cough (39%), fatigue (15%), myalgia (12%), and diarrhea (12%). Laboratory tests revealed leukocytosis with neutrophil predominance, elevated D-dimer, erythrocyte rate, and C-reactive protein. Cardiac markers including troponin-1, troponin-T, and brain natriuretic peptide were elevated in most cases. Radiographic imaging of the chest were mostly normal, and only 31% of chest X-rays showed cardiomegaly and or bilateral infiltration. Electrocardiography (ECG) demonstrated normal sinus rhythm with around 59% ST elevation and rarely PR depression or T wave inversion, while the predominant echocardiographic feature was pericardial effusion. Management with colchicine was favored in most cases, followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and interventional therapy was only needed when patient developed cardiac tamponade. The majority of the reviewed studies reported either recovery or no continued clinical deterioration. The prevalence of COVID-19-related cardiac diseases is high, and pericarditis is a known extrapulmonary manifestation. However, pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade are less prevalent and may require urgent intervention to prevent mortality. Pericarditis should be considered in patients with chest pain, ST elevation on ECG, a normal coronary angiogram, and COVID-19. We emphasize the importance of clinical examination, ECG, and echocardiogram for decision-making, and NSAIDs, colchicine, and corticosteroids are considered to be safe in the treatment of pericarditis/myopericarditis associated with COVID-19.
PubMed: 36120210
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27948 -
The Journals of Gerontology. Series A,... Feb 2024Falls are a common cause of injury, hospitalization, functional decline, and residential care admission among older adults. Cardiovascular disorders are recognized risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Falls are a common cause of injury, hospitalization, functional decline, and residential care admission among older adults. Cardiovascular disorders are recognized risk factors for falls. This systematic review assesses the association between cardiovascular disorders and falls in older adults.
METHODS
Systematic searches were conducted on MEDLINE and Embase, encompassing all literature published prior to December 31, 2022. Included studies addressed persons aged 50 years and older, and assessed the association between cardiovascular disorders and falls or the efficacy of cardiovascular-based interventions to reduce falls. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality utilizing a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for interventional studies. A systematic narrative analysis of all cardiovascular outcomes, and meta-analyses of unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were performed.
RESULTS
One hundred and eighty-four studies were included: 181 observational and 3 interventional. Several cardiovascular disorders, including stroke, coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, arterial stiffness, arrhythmia, orthostatic hypotension, and carotid sinus hypersensitivity, were consistently associated with falls. In meta-analysis of unadjusted ORs, the largest positive pooled associations with falls during a 12-month reporting interval were for stroke (OR: 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.70-2.11), peripheral arterial disease (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.12-2.95), atrial fibrillation (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.27-1.82), and orthostatic hypotension (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.18-1.64).
CONCLUSIONS
Several cardiovascular disorders are associated with falls. These results suggest the need to incorporate cardiovascular assessments for patients with falls. This review informed the cardiovascular recommendations in the new World Guidelines for falls in older adults.Clinical Trials Registration Number: CRD42021272245.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Hypotension, Orthostatic; Accidental Falls; Cardiovascular Diseases; Risk Factors; Stroke
PubMed: 37738307
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glad221 -
Europace : European Pacing,... Mar 2023To describe the role of left atrial (LA) epicardial conduction and targets of ablation in biatrial tachycardias (BiATs).
AIMS
To describe the role of left atrial (LA) epicardial conduction and targets of ablation in biatrial tachycardias (BiATs).
METHODS AND RESULTS
Consecutive patients with BiAT diagnosed by high-density mapping and appropriate entrainment were enrolled. A systematic review of case reports or series was then performed. Biatrial tachycardia was identified in 20 patients aged 63.5 ± 11.1 years. Among them, eight had LA epicardial conduction, including four via the ligament of Marshall, two via myocardial fibres between the great cardiac vein (GCV) and LA, one via septopulmonary bundle, and one via myocardial fibres between the posterior wall and coronary sinus. Ablation was targeted at the anatomical isthmus in 14, including 5 undergoing vein of Marshall ethanol infusion and 2 undergoing ablation in the GCV. Another six underwent ablation at interatrial connections, including one with septopulmonary bundle at the fossa ovalis and five at the atrial insertions of Bachmann's bundle. After a mean follow-up of 8.7 ± 3.8 months, five patients had recurrence of atrial fibrillation/flutter. Systematic review enrolled 87 patients in previous and the present reports, showing a higher risk of impairment in atrial physiology in those targeting interatrial connections (30.4 vs. 5.0%, P < 0.001) but no significant difference in short- and long-term effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
Left atrial epicardial conduction is common in BiATs and affects the ablation strategy. Atrial physiology is a major concern in selecting the target of intervention.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Heart Conduction System; Treatment Outcome; Tachycardia; Heart Atria; Catheter Ablation
PubMed: 36563053
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euac231 -
Journal of Interventional Cardiology Dec 2018The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the efficacy of coronary sinus (CS) reducer device in patients with refractory angina.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the efficacy of coronary sinus (CS) reducer device in patients with refractory angina.
BACKGROUND
The CS reducer device provides a therapeutic option for patients with coronary artery disease who are not suitable for revascularization.
METHODS
Two independent investigators (GB and GT) systematically searched the Medline and Cochrane library databases for studies describing the efficacy and safety of the CS reducer in patients with refractory angina from January 1, 2000 until May 12, 2018 using the following terms: "coronary sinus (reducer OR reducing) device." Efficacy was defined as ≥1 unit improvement in the Canadian cardiovascular society (CCS) score.
RESULTS
Our search strategy provided six studies (five observational studies and one randomized clinical trial) with 196 patients. The CS reducer device was effective in 146/186 (78.5%) patients. CCS score improved from 3.2 at baseline to 1.9 after 8.6 months of follow-up. The efficacy of CS reducer device was also demonstrated as an improvement in Seattle Angina Questionnaire score, dobutamine echocardiography, thalium single-photon emission computed tomography perfusion studies, 6-min-walk test and myocardial perfusion reserve index. Implantation failed in 4 of 196 (2%) patients and 5 patients (2.5%) had a complication during 30-day follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
The CS reducer is a promising treatment option for patients with refractory angina who are not candidates for revascularization. However, larger randomized control trials with long-term follow-up are needed to elucidate its role.
Topics: Aged; Angina Pectoris; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Coronary Sinus; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30191622
DOI: 10.1111/joic.12560 -
Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia Mar 2018Patients with anomalous coronary arteries arising from the opposite sinus of Valsalva (ACAOS), the left coronary artery (LCA) arising from the right sinus or the right...
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Patients with anomalous coronary arteries arising from the opposite sinus of Valsalva (ACAOS), the left coronary artery (LCA) arising from the right sinus or the right coronary artery (RCA) from the left sinus with an interarterial course, may present from complete absence of symptoms to sudden cardiac death. Although there are guidelines on indications for surgery, controversy remains.
METHODS
A retrospective review was performed of all adult patients diagnosed with ACAOS in our hospital between 2007 and 2016. Demographic, clinical, perioperative and follow-up data were collected from clinical records and summarized. A review of the published literature was performed with special emphasis on clinical presentation, surgical indications and results.
RESULTS
Seven symptomatic patients underwent surgery (mean age 57.1±8.9 years, two male, five female); they recovered without complications and to date have had no recurrence of myocardial ischemia. One asymptomatic patient with an anomalous RCA has been medically followed without evidence of myocardial ischemia. A 75-year-old woman, diagnosed in 2008 with an anomalous LCA, was not referred for surgery and died suddenly six months after diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgery for coronary abnormalities is performed with low risk and all published series report full operative survival. The indications for surgery are well established for patients with interarterial anomalous LCA and symptomatic patients with interarterial anomalous RCA. However, there is some uncertainty concerning asymptomatic patients, particularly those with an anomalous interarterial RCA, for whom we propose a more assertive approach, if young or engaged in strenuous activities.
Topics: Aged; Coronary Vessel Anomalies; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Young Adult
PubMed: 29571983
DOI: 10.1016/j.repc.2017.06.019 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2014Patients with chronic heart failure (heart failure) are at risk of thromboembolic events, including stroke, pulmonary embolism and peripheral arterial embolism, whilst... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with chronic heart failure (heart failure) are at risk of thromboembolic events, including stroke, pulmonary embolism and peripheral arterial embolism, whilst coronary ischaemic events also contribute to the progression of heart failure. Long-term oral anticoagulation is established in certain patient groups, including patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation, but there is wide variation in the indications and use of oral anticoagulation in the broader heart failure population.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether long-term oral anticoagulation reduces total deaths, cardiovascular deaths and major thromboembolic events in patients with heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the searches in June 2030 in the electronic databases CENTRAL (Issue 6, 2013) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to June week 1 2013) and EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to 2013 week 23). Reference lists of papers and abstracts from national and international cardiovascular meetings were studied to identify unpublished studies. Relevant authors were contacted to obtain further data. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral anticoagulants with placebo in adults with heart failure, and with treatment duration at least one month. Non-randomised studies were also included for assessing side effects. Inclusion decisions were made in duplicate and any disagreement between review authors was resolved by discussion or a third party.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed the risks and benefits of antithrombotic therapy using relative measures of effects, such as odds ratio, accompanied by the 95% confidence intervals.
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs were identified. One compared warfarin, aspirin and no antithrombotic therapy and the second compared warfarin with placebo in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Three small prospective controlled studies of warfarin in heart failure were also identified, but they were over 50 years old with methods not considered reliable by modern standards. In both WASH 2004 and HELAS 2006, there were no significant differences in the incidence of myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and death between patients taking oral anticoagulation and those taking placebo. Four retrospective non-randomised cohort analyses and four observational studies of oral anticoagulation in heart failure included differing populations of heart failure patients and reported contradictory results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the two major randomised trials (HELAS 2006; WASH 2004), there is no convincing evidence that oral anticoagulant therapy modifies mortality or vascular events in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm. Although oral anticoagulation is indicated in certain groups of patients with heart failure (for example those with atrial fibrillation), the available data does not support the routine use of anticoagulation in heart failure patients who remain in sinus rhythm.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Cardiomyopathy, Dilated; Chronic Disease; Heart Failure; Heart Rate; Humans; Placebo Effect; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thromboembolism; Warfarin
PubMed: 24683002
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003336.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Coronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coronary artery disease is a major public health problem affecting both developed and developing countries. Acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation (electrocardiogram sector is higher than baseline). Ventricular arrhythmia after myocardial infarction is associated with high risk of mortality. The evidence is out of date, and considerable uncertainty remains about the effects of prophylactic use of lidocaine on all-cause mortality, in particular, in patients with suspected myocardial infarction.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic lidocaine in preventing death among people with myocardial infarction.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 April 2015), EMBASE (1947 to 13 April 2015) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1986 to 13 April 2015). We also searched Web of Science (1970 to 13 April 2013) and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restriction in the search.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of prophylactic lidocaine for myocardial infarction. We considered all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality and overall survival at 30 days after myocardial infarction as primary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and measured statistical heterogeneity using I(2). We used a random-effects model and conducted trial sequential analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 37 randomised controlled trials involving 11,948 participants. These trials compared lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention, disopyramide, mexiletine, tocainide, propafenone, amiodarone, dimethylammonium chloride, aprindine and pirmenol. Overall, trials were underpowered and had high risk of bias. Ninety-seven per cent of trials (36/37) were conducted without an a priori sample size estimation. Ten trials were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Trials were conducted in 17 countries, and intravenous intervention was the most frequent route of administration.In trials involving participants with proven or non-proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences regarding all-cause mortality (213/5879 (3.62%) vs 199/5848 (3.40%); RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27; participants = 11727; studies = 18; I(2) = 15%); low-quality evidence), cardiac mortality (69/4184 (1.65%) vs 62/4093 (1.51%); RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.50; participants = 8277; studies = 12; I(2) = 12%; low-quality evidence) and prophylaxis of ventricular fibrillation (76/5128 (1.48%) vs 103/4987 (2.01%); RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; participants = 10115; studies = 16; I(2) = 18%; low-quality evidence). In terms of sinus bradycardia, lidocaine effect is imprecise compared with effects of placebo or no intervention (55/1346 (4.08%) vs 49/1203 (4.07%); RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.80; participants = 2549; studies = 8; I(2) = 21%; very low-quality evidence). In trials involving only participants with proven acute myocardial infarction, lidocaine versus placebo or no intervention showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality (148/2747 (5.39%) vs 135/2506 (5.39%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; participants = 5253; studies = 16; I(2) = 9%; low-quality evidence). No significant differences were noted between lidocaine and any other antiarrhythmic drug in terms of all-cause mortality and ventricular fibrillation. Data on overall survival 30 days after myocardial infarction were not reported. Lidocaine compared with placebo or no intervention increased risk of asystole (35/3393 (1.03%) vs 14/3443 (0.41%); RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.26; participants = 6826; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and dizziness/drowsiness (74/1259 (5.88%) vs 16/1274 (1.26%); RR 3.85, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.47; participants = 2533; studies = 6; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Overall, safety data were poorly reported and adverse events may have been underestimated. Trial sequential analyses suggest that additional trials may not be needed for reliable conclusions to be drawn regarding these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This Cochrane review found evidence of low quality to suggest that prophylactic lidocaine has very little or no effect on mortality or ventricular fibrillation in people with acute myocardial infarction. The safety profile is unclear. This conclusion is based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. However (disregarding the risk of bias), trial sequential analysis suggests that additional trials may not be needed to disprove an intervention effect of 20% relative risk reduction. Smaller risk reductions might require additional higher trials.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Humans; Lidocaine; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ventricular Fibrillation
PubMed: 26295202
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008553.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021People with chronic heart failure (HF) are at risk of thromboembolic events, including stroke, pulmonary embolism, and peripheral arterial embolism; coronary ischaemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
People with chronic heart failure (HF) are at risk of thromboembolic events, including stroke, pulmonary embolism, and peripheral arterial embolism; coronary ischaemic events also contribute to the progression of HF. The use of long-term oral anticoagulation is established in certain populations, including people with HF and atrial fibrillation (AF), but there is wide variation in the indications and use of oral anticoagulation in the broader HF population.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether long-term oral anticoagulation reduces total deaths and stroke in people with heart failure in sinus rhythm.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated the searches in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in March 2020. We screened reference lists of papers and abstracts from national and international cardiovascular meetings to identify unpublished studies. We contacted relevant authors to obtain further data. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing oral anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment in adults with HF, with treatment duration of at least one month. We made inclusion decisions in duplicate, and resolved any disagreements between review authors by discussion, or a third party.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, and assessed the risks and benefits of antithrombotic therapy by calculating odds ratio (OR), accompanied by the 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three RCTs (5498 participants). One RCT compared warfarin, aspirin, and no antithrombotic therapy, the second compared warfarin with placebo in participants with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, and the third compared rivaroxaban with placebo in participants with HF and coronary artery disease. We pooled data from the studies that compared warfarin with a placebo or no treatment. We are uncertain if there is an effect on all-cause death (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.18; 2 studies, 324 participants; low-certainty evidence); warfarin may increase the risk of major bleeding events (OR 5.98, 95% CI 1.71 to 20.93, NNTH 17). 2 studies, 324 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported stroke as an individual outcome. Rivaroxaban makes little to no difference to all-cause death compared with placebo (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.13; 1 study, 5022 participants; high-certainty evidence). Rivaroxaban probably reduces the risk of stroke compared to placebo (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; NNTB 101; 1 study, 5022 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases the risk of major bleeding events (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.33; NNTH 79; 1 study, 5008 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the three RCTs, there is no evidence that oral anticoagulant therapy modifies mortality in people with HF in sinus rhythm. The evidence is uncertain if warfarin has any effect on all-cause death compared to placebo or no treatment, but it may increase the risk of major bleeding events. There is no evidence of a difference in the effect of rivaroxaban on all-cause death compared to placebo. It probably reduces the risk of stroke, but probably increases the risk of major bleedings. The available evidence does not support the routine use of anticoagulation in people with HF who remain in sinus rhythm.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Cardiomyopathy, Dilated; Chronic Disease; Heart Failure; Heart Rate; Hemorrhage; Humans; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivaroxaban; Stroke; Thromboembolism; Warfarin
PubMed: 34002371
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003336.pub4 -
International Heart Journal Jan 2021There is scant information about the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of coronary obstruction (CO) following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
There is scant information about the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of coronary obstruction (CO) following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR). A meta-analysis of the published studies from January 2000 to April 2020 was conducted, and the endpoint was CO. A total of 2858 patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age was 77.7 ± 9.8, and 39.9% of them were female. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), and Logistic EuroSCORE were 8.9 ± 7.8, 16.0 ± 10.9, and 26.3 ± 16.3, respectively. The overall incidence of CO was 2.58%. CO incidence between patients with prior stented and stentless valves were significantly different (1.67% versus 7.17%), with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.25 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.14-0.44 (P < 0.00001). The first-generation valves were significantly associated with higher CO incidence compared with the second-generation valves (7.09% versus 2.03%; OR, 2.44; 95%CI, 1.06-5.62; P = 0.04), while no statistical difference was found between self-expandable valves and balloon-expandable valves (2.45% versus 2.60%; OR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.55-1.79; P = 0.98). Virtual transcatheter to coronary ostia (VTC) distance (3.3 ± 2.1 mm, n = 29 versus 5.8 ± 2.4 mm, n = 169; mean difference, -2.70; 95%CI, -3.46 to -1.95; P < 0.00001) and the sinus of Valsalva (SOV) diameter (27.5 ± 3.8 mm, n = 23 versus 32.3 ± 4.0 mm, n = 101; mean difference, -3.80; 95%CI, -6.55 to -1.05; P = 0.007) were enormously shorter in patients with CO. The 24-hour, in-hospital, and 30-day mortality of patients with CO were 10.5%, 30.8%, and 37.1%, respectively. In conclusion, device selections, VTC distances, and SOV diameters may be important factors in assessing the CO risk in VIV-TAVR.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Bioprosthesis; Coronary Artery Bypass; Coronary Occlusion; Female; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Incidence; Male; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Risk Factors; Sinus of Valsalva; Stents; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
PubMed: 33455986
DOI: 10.1536/ihj.20-401 -
Advances in Therapy Sep 2022Beta-blockers are recommended by the European Society of Cardiology as first-line antianginal therapy for reducing heart rate (HR) and symptoms in patients with chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Beta-blockers are recommended by the European Society of Cardiology as first-line antianginal therapy for reducing heart rate (HR) and symptoms in patients with chronic coronary syndrome, despite a lack of data showing superiority to other antianginal agents. Most patients with angina pectoris require combination therapy to manage symptoms, with a second-line agent chosen to manage the predominant cardiovascular problem. Ivabradine, a selective sinus node I channel inhibitor shown to reduce HR and protect against anginal symptoms, has previously demonstrated noninferior anti-ischaemic and antianginal efficacy to beta-blockers.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ivabradine in patients with stable angina pectoris who remained symptomatic despite receiving beta-blockers. Keyword searches of PubMed, The Cochrane Central Library Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Google Scholar identified studies comparing ivabradine plus beta-blockers with placebo or other first- or second-line antianginal agents in patients with stable angina pectoris. No date limits or language restrictions were applied. Outcomes were evaluated after 1 and 4 months of treatment, including changes in HR, angina attacks, use of short-acting nitrates, quality of life and safety. Risk of bias was evaluated on the basis of recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
RESULTS
Seven relevant studies were identified (N = 6821). Ivabradine plus a beta-blocker consistently reduced HR, anginal symptoms and short-acting nitrate consumption within 1 month of initiating therapy, with continued reductions for up to 4 months. Furthermore, ivabradine plus beta-blocker therapy was well tolerated, with bradycardia rarely reported (0.1% of patients overall). This study is limited by the inclusion of only two randomised studies, which may lead to result interpretation bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Ivabradine may be valuable for tailoring early antianginal treatment when used in combination with beta-blockers for chronic stable angina inadequately controlled by beta-blockers.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angina, Stable; Benzazepines; Cardiovascular Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Heart Rate; Humans; Ivabradine; Nitrates; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35842897
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02222-1