Potapenko 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Unit of randomisation: No information Total duration of study: No information Run‐in period: No information Intervention time: 3.5 years Follow‐up: 36.1 ± 6.2 months Setting: University of Peoples' Friendship Moscow; City Hospital N64
Participants	Type of heart failure: MI with systolic CHF N = 49 participants (ivabradine and beta‐blockers: 23; SC: 26) Mean age: 63.1 ± 8.1 years Gender: 40 (81.6%) male, 9 (18.4%) female Severity of condition: No information Inclusion criteria: Sinus rhythm > 3‐month history of MI EF < 40% HR ≥ 60 bpm NYHA II‐III Exclusion criteria: Revascularisation of myocardium conducted during the past 6 months Existence of an indication for a revascularisation emergency surgery Stroke or temporary disturbances in cerebral perfusion during the past 3 months Implanted artificial pacemaker or cardioverter defibrillator Heart valve defect with a high chance of surgical treatment during the course of the following 3 years Sinus node weakness Sinoatrial block Long QT syndrome Atrioventricular block Withdrawals: 6 withdrawals (12%)
Interventions	Intervention: Ivabradine (initial dose 5 mg twice a day; after 2 weeks with a heart rate of 60/min or higher: 7.5 mg twice a day; if heart rate dropped below 50/min or other clinical symptoms of bradycardia: again 5 mg twice a day; if symptoms did not improve: ivabradine treatment stopped) Comparison: SC Concomitant medications: BB (85.7%) ACE inhibitor (96%) Excluded medications: No information
Outcomes	Outcomes and time points measured in the study: [Day 0, Year 3.5] HR BP Parameters of ECG Levels of electrolytes Creatinin in blood plasma Frequency of hospitalisations Recurrent non‐fatal MI and lethality (combined endpoint) Conclusion: "In the same trend in BP and Echocardiography, group 1 (Ivabradine) patients showed significant and more pronounced HR lowering than group 2 patients. Addition of ivabradine to standard treatment of systolic chronic cardiac failure after MI promoted less frequency of hospitalizations, recurrent non‐fatal MI, fatal cardiovascular events. This effect was especially strong in high baseline HR."
Notes	Funding for trial: No information Notable conflicts of interest of authors: No information Contact to authors/unpublished data: We contacted AV Potapenko via email on 22 November 2018 to ask for an English publication. We did not receive an answer.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"The procedure of randomization to receive either ivabradine or SC was performed by sealed envelopes."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding possible due to comparison with SC.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Less than 20% missing data. Outcomes reported for 42 of 49 participants (88%).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes stated in the methods section were adequately reported or explained in the results.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement