Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 4;2020(11):CD013004. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013004.pub2

Sarullo 2010.

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 months
Follow‐up: 3 months
Setting: Buccheri La Ferla‐Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Palermo, Italy (F Sarullo via email on 22 November 2018)
Participants Type of heart failure: Ischaemic HF
N = 60 participants (ivabradine and BB: 30; placebo: 30)
Mean age:
  • Ivabradine: 52.1 ± 6.1 years

  • Placebo: 52.9 ± 4.9 years


Gender:
  • Ivabradine: 23 (76%) male, 7 (24%) female

  • Placebo: 22 (74%) male, 8 (26%) female


Severity of condition: LVEF ≤ 40%
Inclusion criteria:
  • NYHA class II/III

  • Sinus rhythm

  • Resting HR > 70 bpm

  • Clinically stable

  • Standard medical therapy in the 3 months before the study

  • Mitral insufficiency was present in 20 participants and was mild in all participants


Exclusion criteria:
  • Unstable angina

  • Recent acute myocardial infarction

  • Decompensated congestive HF

  • Haemodynamically significant valvular heart disease

  • Atrial fibrillation

  • Poorly controlled cardiac arrhythmias

  • Significant chronic pulmonary illness

  • Renal insufficiency (serum creatinine ≥ 2.5 mg/dL)

  • Exercise testing limited by angina or leg claudication

  • Abnormal blood pressure during exercise > 250 mmHg

  • Diastolic blood pressure > 120 mmHg

  • Systolic blood pressure response decrease > 20 mmHg after a normal increase or decrease below the resting level

  • Neurological or orthopaedic limitations


Withdrawals: No information
Interventions Intervention:
  • Ivabradine 5 mg twice a day

  • After 2 weeks and HR ≥ 70 bpm ivabradine 7.5 mg twice a day


Comparison: Placebo
Concomitant medications:
  • ACE inhibitors (lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/day)

  • BB (carvedilol, bisoprolol)

  • Amiodarone

  • Nitrates

  • Statins

  • Antiplatelet agents

  • Diuretics

  • Aspririn


Excluded medications: No information
Outcomes Outcomes and time points measured in the study:
[Day 0, Month 3]
  • Maximal exercise test with respiratory gas analysis

  • Endurance test with constant workload

  • Symptom‐limited incremental cycle ergometer exercise testing with electrocardiographic monitoring

  • Echocardiography

  • NT‐pro‐BNP

  • Quality of life


Conclusion: "The "Off‐Label" use of ivabradine significantly improves the exercise capacity, gas exchange, functional HF class, quality of life, and neurohormonal modulation in pts with ischemic CHF"
Notes Funding for trial: "The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article."
Notable conflicts of interest of authors: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article."
Contact to authors/unpublished data: We contacted F Sarullo via email on 22 November 2018 to ask for way of randomisation, number of centres, country, and missing data. F Sarullo answered on 22 November 2018, providing the information about randomisation, number of centres, country, and that no other unpublished data were available.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk "The procedure of randomization to receive either ivabradine 5 mg or placebo twice daily was performed by computerized sequence generation. " (F Sarullo via email on 22 November 2018)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk "The tablets of ivabradine and placebo were prepared and placed before the randomization in numbered anonymous bottles." (F Sarullo via email on 22 November 2018)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes High risk "The single blind design was carried out..."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Low risk No blinding. However, the measured outcomes are objective outcomes (mortality, length of stay, etc.) and thus not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Insufficient information to base judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All outcomes stated in the methods section were adequately reported or explained in the results.
Other bias Low risk "The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article."