Tumasyan 2016.

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 years Follow‐up: No information Setting: Institute of Cardiology, Yerevan, Armenia
Participants	Type of heart failure: CHF, LV‐dysfunction N = 106 (ivabradine and BB: 53; SC: 53) Mean age: 57.4 ± 0.4 years Gender: No information Severity of condition: HFrEF < 40% Inclusion criteria: NYHA class III‐IV Exclusion criteria: No information Withdrawals: No information
Interventions	Intervention: Ivabradine max. 7.5 mg twice a day Comparison: SC Concomitant medications: ACE inhibitors BB Digoxin Diuretics Excluded medications: No information
Outcomes	Outcomes and time points measured in the study: [0 d, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36 months] Mortality Hospitalisation rate RV EF Fractional area change Tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion RA and LA functional index Fractional contribution Relation of pulmonary vein Systolic and diastolic fraction Systolic contribution Difference between duration of reversal atrial flow and late transmittal filling Pulmonary artery ejection time BNP NT‐pro‐BNP C‐reactive protein levels Conclusion: Decrease of BNP, NT‐pro‐BNP ≥ 50%, C‐reactive protein levels and changes in duration of reversal atrial flow and late transmittal filling ≥ 40%, HR ≥ 30% and increase of RA and LA functional index ≥ 80%, fractional contribution, RV EF and fractional area change ≥ 40%, pulmonary vein systolic contribution ≥ 50% identified pts with cardiac events reduction Ivabradine use associated with lower mortality and morbidity due to significant improvement of right heart and LA functional parameters, neurohormonal and inflammation status, and HR reduction
Notes	Funding for trial: No information Notable conflicts of interest of authors: No information Contact to authors/unpublished data: We contacted KG Adamyan and S Grigoryan via email on 22 November 2018 to ask for funding, country, number of centres, and missing data. The email to KG Adamyan failed, but S Grigoryan answered that she had forwarded the email to the correct email address. Nevertheless, 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)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding impossible 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	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to base judgement