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

Tsutsui 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: RCT
Unit of randomisation: No information
Total duration of study: 15 months (December 2013 to February 2015)
Run‐in period: 2 weeks
Intervention time: 6 weeks
Follow‐up: 2 weeks
Setting: 73 institutions in Japan
Participants Type of heart failure: CHF, LV‐dysfunction
N = 126 (ivabradine and BB: 84; placebo: 42)
Mean age: 59 ± 13.1 years
Gender: 108 (85.7%) male, 18 (14.3%) female
Severity of condition: HFrEF ≤ 35%
Inclusion criteria:
  • Age ≥ 20 years

  • Resting HR ≥ 75 bpm in sinus rhythm

  • Stable symptomatic CHF of NYHA functional class ≥ II

  • LVEF ≤ 35%

  • Under optimal, stable treatment according to the Japanese Guideline for Treatment of CHF (Matsuzaki 2010)


Exclusion criteria:
  • Congenital heart disease

  • MI within 2 months

  • Persistent atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter

  • Sick sinus syndrome

  • Sinoatrial node block or second‐ or third‐degree atrioventricular block

  • Atrioventricular pacing operative for ≥ 40% of the day or with backup pacing rate ≥ 60 bpm

  • Severe or uncontrolled hypertension or symptomatic hypotension

  • Moderate or severe hepatic disease

  • Severe renal disease

  • Anaemia


Withdrawals:
  • 4 withdrawals

  • Additionally 3 participants (1 in the 2.5 mg group and 2 in the 5 mg group) were excluded for violation of the major inclusion criteria

Interventions Intervention:
  • Starting dose of ivabradine 2.5 mg twice a day (2.5 mg group); 5 mg twice a day group. The dose was increased up to 7.5 mg twice a day.

  • The final mean doses at 6 weeks were similar between the 2.5 mg and 5 mg groups (6.5 ± 1.8 mg twice a day vs 7.1 ± 1.1 mg twice a day, P = 0.416)


Comparison: Placebo
Concomitant medications:
  • SC

  • ACE inhibitor

  • Angiotensin‐receptor blocker

  • BB

  • Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist

  • Diuretics

  • Digitalis


Excluded medications:
  • Non‐dihydropyridine calcium‐channel blockers

  • Class I antiarrhythmics

  • Moderate or strong inhibitors of cytochrome P450 3A4

Outcomes Outcomes and time points measured in the study:
[0, 6 weeks]
Primary endpoint:
  • Reduction in resting HR from baseline at the 6‐week treatment


Secondary endpoint:
  • Change in NYHA functional class

  • LVEF

  • Concentrations of plasma B‐type natriuretic peptide (BNP)

  • NT‐pro‐BNP


Conclusion: "Ivabradine starting at 2.5 or 5 mg BID effectively reduced resting HR in Japanese HF patients. Ivabradine at the starting dose of 2.5 mg BID could be safer than 5 mg BID."
Notes Funding for trial: "This trial was designed and performed by the sponsor (Ono Pharmaceutical)."
Notable conflicts of interest of authors: "The data were collected and analyzed and the first draft manuscript was written by the sponsor. It was fully reviewed and revised by the authors."
Contact to authors/unpublished data: We contacted H Tsuitsui via email on 22 November 2018 to ask for way of randomisation and missing data. H Tsuitsui answered on 26 November 2018, providing information about method of randomisation and that there were no additional data.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk "We used a computer‐based dynamic allocation method by baseline resting heart rate and the dose of beta‐blocker to balance the baseline." (H Tsuitsui via email on 22 November 2018)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Insufficient information to base judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes Low risk "The pts and investigators were masked to the treatment allocation."
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 122 of 126 participants (96.8%).
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 "This trial was designed and performed by the sponsor (Ono Pharmaceutical). The data were collected and analyzed and the first draft manuscript was written by the sponsor. It was fully reviewed and revised by the authors."