Tumasyan 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Unit of randomisation: No information Total duration of study: No information Run‐in period: No information Intervention time: No information Follow‐up: No information Setting: No information
Participants	Type of heart failure: CHF N = 165 participants (digoxin: 55; ivabradine and BB: 53; SC: 57) Mean age: 63.2 years Gender: No information Severity of condition: No information Inclusion criteria: NYHA III Preserved LVEF HR ≥ 70 bpm Exclusion criteria: No information Withdrawals: No information
Interventions	Intervention: Ivabradine max. 7.5 mg twice a day Comparison: Digoxin 0.25 mg twice a day No treatment Concomitant medications: ACE inhibitors BB Diuretics Excluded medications: No information
Outcomes	Outcomes and time points measured in the study: [Day 0, Month 12, 24, and 36] LV, RV, LA, RA atrial parameters NT‐pro‐BNP High sensitivity C‐reactive protein levels RV fractional area change Tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion Pulmonary artery ejection time RA and LA functional index Relation of pulmonary vein systolic and diastolic fraction PV systolic contribution Difference between duration of reversal atrial flow and late transmitral filling Conclusion: Changes of duration of reversal atrial flow and late transmittal filling ≥ 80%, RA and LA functional index, PV systolic contribution ≥ 50%, NT‐pro‐BNP, high sensitivity C‐reactive protein levels ≥ 40%; pulmonary artery ejection time and HR ≥ 25% identified pts with hospitalisation risk reduction Ivabradine and digoxin use associated with similar significant reduction of morbidity and trend of reduction of mortality due to significant improvement of RV, LA and RA 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Notes	Funding for trial: No information Notable conflicts of interest of authors: No information Contact to authors/unpublished data: We contacted KG Adamyan and S Grigoryan via email on 22 November 2018 to ask for funding, country, number of centres, and missing data.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