Maagaard Mathias, Nielsen Emil Eik, Sethi Naqash Javaid, Ning Liang, Yang Si-Hong, Gluud Christian, Jakobsen Janus Christian
Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
Department of Internal Medicine, Holbæk Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark.
Open Heart. 2020 Oct;7(2). doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2020-001288.
To determine the impact of ivabradine on outcomes important to patients with angina pectoris caused by coronary artery disease.
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.
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.
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.
CRD42018112082.
确定伊伐布雷定对冠心病所致心绞痛患者重要预后的影响。
我们进行了一项系统评价。纳入了2020年6月之前发表的比较伊伐布雷定与安慰剂或无干预措施治疗冠心病所致心绞痛患者的随机临床试验。我们采用了系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目指南、Cochrane方法、试验序贯分析、推荐分级的评估、制定和评价,以及我们的八步程序。主要结局为全因死亡率、严重不良事件和生活质量。
我们纳入了47项随机临床试验,共35797名参与者。所有试验和结局均存在高偏倚风险。在评估全因死亡率(风险比[RR]1.04;95%CI 0.96至1.13)、生活质量(标准化均数差-0.05;95%CI -0.11至0.01)、心血管死亡率(RR 1.07;95%CI 0.97至1.18)和心肌梗死(RR 1.03;95%CI 0.91至1.16)时,伊伐布雷定与对照组相比无效果。去除离群值后,伊伐布雷定似乎增加了严重不良事件的风险(RR 1.07;95%CI 1.03至1.11)以及以下分类为严重的不良事件:心动过缓、QT间期延长、闪光幻觉、心房颤动和高血压。伊伐布雷定还增加了非严重不良事件的风险(RR 1.13;95%CI 1.11至1.16)。在评估心绞痛发作频率(均数差[MD]2.06;95%CI 0.82至3.30)和稳定性(MD 1.48;95%CI 0.07至2.89)时,伊伐布雷定可能有统计学意义的效果,但效应量似乎很小,可能与患者无关,并且我们发现了几个方法学局限性,对这些结果的有效性提出了质疑。
我们的研究结果不支持伊伐布雷定对患者重要预后有显著益处,反而似乎增加了心房颤动等严重不良事件和非严重不良事件的风险。基于目前的证据,指南需要重新评估,伊伐布雷定用于心绞痛的治疗应重新考虑。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42018112082。