Search

Aims: A therapeutic strategy for chronic heart failure (HF) is to lower resting heart rate (HR). Ivabradine is a well‐known HR‐lowering agent, but limited prospective data exist regarding its use in Chinese patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in Chinese patients with chronic HF. Methods and results: This multicentre, single‐arm, prospective, observational study enrolled Chinese patients with chronic HF. The primary outcome was change from baseline in HR at 1 and 6 months, measured by pulse counting. Effectiveness was also evaluated using laboratory tests, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical summary score (CSS) and overall summary score (OSS), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. A post hoc analysis examined the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine combined with an angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or beta‐blocker. A total of 1003 patients were enrolled [mean age 54.4 ± 15.0 years, 773 male (77.1%), mean baseline HR 88.5 ± 11.3 b.p.m., mean blood pressure 115.7/74.4 ± 17.2/12.3 mmHg, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30.9 ± 7.6%, NYHA Classes III and IV in 48.8% and 22.0% of patients, respectively]. HR decreased by a mean of 12.9 and 16.1 b.p.m. after 1 and 6 months, respectively (both P < 0.001). At Month 6, improvements in the KCCQ CSS and OSS of ≥5 points were observed in 72.1% and 74.1% of patients, respectively (both P < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction increased by 12.1 ± 11.6 (P < 0.001), and 66.7% of patients showed improvement in NYHA class (P < 0.001). At Month 6, the overall proportion of patients in NYHA Classes III and IV was reduced to 13.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Serum brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N‐terminal pro‐BNP changed by −331.9 ng/L (−1238.6, −134.0) and −1113.8 ng/L (−2202.0, −297.2), respectively (P < 0.001). HR reductions and improvements in NYHA and KCCQ scores with ivabradine were similar with and without use of ARNIs or beta‐blockers. Of 498 TEAEs in 296 patients (29.5%), 73 TEAEs in 55 patients (5.5%) were considered related to ivabradine [most frequent sinus bradycardia (n = 7) and photopsia (n = 7)]. TEAEs were reported in a similar number of patients in ARNI and beta‐blocker subgroups (21.9–35.6%). Conclusions: Ivabradine treatment reduced HR and improved cardiac function and health‐related quality of life in Chinese patients with chronic HF. Benefits were seen irrespective of whether or not patients were also taking ARNIs or beta‐blockers. Treatment was well tolerated with a similar profile to previous ivabradine studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]