Skip Navigation


European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on August 31, 2009
European Heart Journal
2009 30(19):2337-2345; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp358
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
30/19/2337    most recent
ehp358v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in EHJ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fox, K.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fox, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2009. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Relationship between ivabradine treatment and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction with limiting angina: a subgroup analysis of the randomized, controlled BEAUTIFUL trial

Kim Fox1,*, Ian Ford2, Ph. Gabriel Steg3, Michal Tendera4, Michele Robertson2, Roberto Ferrari5 on behalf of the BEAUTIFUL Investigators

1 Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London, UK
2 Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
3 INSERM U-698, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, AP-HP, University Paris 7, Paris, France
4 Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
5 Chair of Cardiology, University of Ferrara, S. Maugeri Foundation, Ferrara, Italy

Received 18 June 2009; revised 11 August 2009; accepted 12 August 2009; online publish-ahead-of-print 31 August 2009.

* Corresponding author. Tel: +44 207 352 8121, Fax: +44 207 351 8629, Email: k.fox{at}rbht.nhs.uk

See page 2300 for the commentary on this article (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp360)


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Funding
 References
 
Aims: BEAUTIFUL found no impact of ivabradine on outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). We performed a post hoc analysis of the effect of ivabradine in BEAUTIFUL patients whose limiting symptom at baseline was angina, particularly in terms of coronary outcomes.

Methods and results: Of the BEAUTIFUL population, 13.8% had limiting angina at baseline (734 ivabradine, 773 placebo); of these, 712 patients had heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. Median duration of follow-up was 18 months. Ivabradine was associated with a 24% reduction in the primary endpoint (cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI] or heart failure) (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58–1.00) and a 42% reduction in hospitalization for MI (HR, 0.58, 95% CI, 0.37–0.92). In patients with heart rate ≥70 b.p.m., there was a 73% reduction in hospitalization for MI (HR, 0.27, 95% CI, 0.11–0.66) and a 59% reduction in coronary revascularization (HR, 0.41, 95% CI, 0.17–0.99). Ivabradine was safe and well tolerated.

Conclusion: Our analyses raises the possibility that ivabradine may be helpful to reduce major cardiovascular events in patients with stable CAD and LVSD who present with limiting angina. However, a large-scale clinical trial is ongoing, which will formally test this hypothesis.

Key Words: Coronary artery disease • Heart rate • If inhibition • Ivabradine • Prognosis • Stable angina pectoris


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Funding
 References
 
The BEAUTIFUL (morBidity-mortality EvAlUaTion of the If inhibitor ivabradine in patients with coronary disease and left ventricULar dysfunction) study established resting heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. as a risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).1 Elevated heart rate (≥70 b.p.m.) was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death (34%), hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (46%), and coronary revascularization (38%). These observations confirmed previous retrospective data on the prognostic role of elevated heart rate in CAD patients.2–4 Although there was no measurable impact of treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine on primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, or heart failure (HF) outcomes in the whole population, the BEAUTIFUL trial suggested that reduction of heart rate in patients with an elevated heart rate (≥70 b.p.m.) with ivabradine has an impact on coronary outcomes5 with 36 and 30% reductions in relative risk of hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI and coronary revascularization, respectively. These observations were attributed to possible differential effects of increased heart rate on cardiovascular outcomes, probably reflecting more complex compensatory haemodynamic responses in patients with HF, in contrast to a direct effect on coronary outcomes (i.e. ischaemia or MI).1

Heart rate is one of the principal determinants of myocardial oxygen consumption, and elevated heart rate is a state where energy requirements and myocardial oxygen demand are increased. Elevated heart rate shortens the length of each cardiac cycle, thereby reducing diastolic perfusion time and oxygen supply. Heart rate also appears to have an impact on the development of atherosclerosis via an increase in the exposure of endothelium to low shear stress at higher values.6 Acceleration of heart rate may increase the risk of acute coronary syndromes by excessive mechanical stress to atherosclerotic plaque.7 Therefore, elevated heart rate potentially plays an important role in the development and progression of coronary atherosclerosis, triggering ischaemic events through an increase in myocardial oxygen demand and a reduction in diastolic perfusion. The anti-ischaemic efficacy of heart rate reduction with ivabradine has been demonstrated clinically in patients with stable angina pectoris,8,9 and supported in patients with stable CAD and LV dysfunction in BEAUTIFUL in terms of a reduction in rates of coronary revascularization.5

The most important clinical manifestation of myocardial ischaemia is anginal pain or discomfort. The presence of limiting angina can have a profound impact on the quality of life of patients with stable CAD, and may affect prognosis.10–15 The increased risk of mortality in patients with limiting angina appears to be comparable to a decade of age difference, the presence of diabetes, or the presence of HF.14 Limiting angina symptoms have been found to be independently predictive of adverse outcomes,15 with a substantial increase in risk for every change in step on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification.

Ivabradine is currently indicated in the management of stable angina pectoris due to its heart rate lowering action. In view of its benefits in terms of coronary outcomes, we sought to explore the effects of ivabradine on cardiovascular outcomes in a subpopulation of BEAUTIFUL whose limiting symptom at baseline was angina.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Funding
 References
 
Study design
BEAUTIFUL was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial recruiting male and female patients with stable CAD and LVSD. The study design has been described previously.5,16 Briefly, patients eligible for inclusion were male or female, aged 55 years or over (18 years or over if diabetic), with stable CAD (documented by previous MI, previous coronary revascularization, or angiographic evidence of the narrowing of one or more coronary arteries), LV ejection fraction <40%, and end-diastolic short-axis internal dimension >56 mm by echocardiography. Patients had to be in sinus rhythm with resting heart rate ≥60 b.p.m. Angina and/or HF symptoms (if any) should have been stable for ≥3 months and patients should have received appropriate conventional cardiovascular medication at stable doses for at least 1 month. Patients with a history of MI or coronary revascularization in the previous 6 months were excluded from the study.

Following a 2-week run-in period with no study treatment, patients were randomly allocated to receive either ivabradine 5 mg b.i.d. or matched placebo. After 2 weeks, patients with resting heart rate ≥60 b.p.m. had their treatment uptitrated to ivabradine 7.5 mg b.i.d. or matched placebo. The dosage could subsequently be reduced in patients with resting heart rate <50 b.p.m. or signs or symptoms of bradycardia. Study visits were programmed at 2 weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months, and then every 6 months. All BEAUTIFUL participants received optimal background therapy for stable CAD, including β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, lipid-lowering agents, and antiplatelet agents.

In this post hoc analysis, the BEAUTIFUL population was divided according to the presence of limiting angina symptoms at baseline using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification. Patients were questioned at the inclusion visit regarding the presence of symptoms limiting activity, and whether they were related to anginal pain or due to the presence of HF (fatigue, palpitations, or dyspnoea). Patients with limiting symptoms of angina were in NYHA classes II or III, which include slight and marked limitation of physical activity due to angina pectoris, respectively (equivalent to CCS classes II and III). NYHA class IV was an exclusion criterion.5,16 This population was also subdivided according to heart rate at baseline with an analysis in a pre-specified subgroup with heart rate ≥70 b.p.m., in line with the analysis of the main study.5

The primary endpoint in this analysis was the same as in the main study: a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI, and hospitalization for new-onset or worsening HF. Secondary endpoints included mortality (all-cause death; cardiovascular death; and cardiac death), HF (hospitalization for new-onset or worsening HF; and a composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for new-onset or worsening HF), and coronary outcomes (hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI; a composite of hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI and unstable angina pectoris; and coronary revascularization).5 These outcomes were evaluated in the subpopulation with limiting angina, as well as in the subpopulation with limiting angina and heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. All pre-specified outcomes were adjudicated by an independent central endpoint validation committee.

This analysis was performed to determine the effects of ivabradine, a recognized anti-anginal agent, on the outcome of patients with CAD and LV dysfunction whose limiting symptom at randomization was angina.

Statistical methods
Descriptive statistics are presented for the baseline characteristics for continuous variables (means [SD]) or categorical variables (n [%]). All analyses were carried out for the whole population with limiting angina and for the pre-specified subgroup with heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. For analyses where subjects did not have the event, they were censored at the time of the last follow-up (i.e. the end of study for subjects still alive or date of death for subjects who died) in the same way as for the main study analysis. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to calculate time-to-event curves. The risk of cardiovascular outcomes was compared between randomized treatment groups using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for β-blocker treatment status at randomization. Hazard ratios (HR) for outcomes for ivabradine vs. placebo were calculated with associated 95% CIs and P-values. It is appreciated that statistical significance has less meaning in subgroup analyses such as this and is presented in the results for indicative purposes only. None of the analyses was confirmatory, and there was no adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were carried out by the independent trial statistical centre in the Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow, UK, using SAS® software for Windows version 9.1.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Funding
 References
 
Limiting angina symptoms were identified in 13.8% of the BEAUTIFUL population at baseline (1507 out of 10 917 patients). Of these, 734 were randomized to ivabradine treatment and 773 to placebo. A total of 712 patients had resting heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. at baseline: 47.2% of the population; of these, 349 were randomized to ivabradine treatment and 363 to placebo.

The baseline characteristics of the subpopulations with and without limiting angina are presented in Tables 1 and 2, together with those for the subpopulations with resting heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. There were no relevant differences in baseline characteristics between the ivabradine and placebo groups for either of the subpopulations. There were no unexpected differences between patients with limiting angina and the total BEAUTIFUL population:5 patients with limiting angina had higher rates of hypertension (80 vs. 71%), were less likely to have previously undergone coronary revascularization (35 vs. 52%), and had a considerably higher rate of intake of organic nitrates (73 vs. 43%).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the population with and without limiting angina symptoms at baseline

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Baseline characteristics of the population with and without limiting angina symptoms at baseline and heart rate ≥70 b.p.m.

 
The rates of use of cardiovascular medication in the subpopulation with limiting angina were high (Table 1), notably for antithrombotic treatment (92%) and ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blockade (87%). The use of β-blockers was also high (90%), though not all patients achieved target dose. The percentage of patients receiving at least half the target dose of the five most common β-blockers were as follows: 48% (121/254) of patients on carvedilol (target dose, 50 mg/day); 33% (58/175) of patients on metoprolol succinate (target dose, 200 mg/day); 66% (200/301) of patients on bisoprolol (target dose, 10 mg/day); 79% (26/33) of patients on nebivolol (target dose, 10 mg/day); and 36% (157/438) of patients on metoprolol tartrate (target dose, 150 mg/day). The reasons given for intake of a lower than recommended dosage of β-blocker were bradycardia (17% ivabradine and 13% placebo); fatigue (20 and 21%); hypotension (23 and 20%); cardiac decompensation (7 and 6%); dizziness and vertigo (6 and 6%); and sexual dysfunction (7 and 4%).

The median duration of follow-up was 18 months. The rate of uptitration to ivabradine 7.5 mg b.i.d. after 15 days was 44% in the subpopulation with limiting angina, and 37% remained at higher dosage for the duration of the study. The mean dosage of ivabradine in the subpopulation with limiting angina was 6.11 mg b.i.d. and 6.46 mg b.i.d. when resting heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. The rates of compliance in the subpopulation with limiting angina were similar to the main BEAUTIFUL population with 97 and 98% of the ivabradine and placebo groups, respectively, having taken at least 70% of the planned dose of study drug.

Figure 1 presents the mean change in resting heart rate throughout the study for the patients with limiting angina. Treatment with ivabradine in this subpopulation reduced resting heart rate by 10.6 b.p.m. (standard deviation [SD] 9.8) at 30 days vs. 3.2 b.p.m. (SD 9.0) with placebo. Heart rate remained stable thereafter, and the mean reduction from baseline was 8.1 b.p.m. (SD 11.6) at 18 months with ivabradine and 2.5 b.p.m. (SD 10.8) with placebo. For the subpopulation with limiting angina and resting heart rate ≥70 b.p.m., ivabradine reduced resting heart rate by an average of 15.3 b.p.m. (SD 10.3) at 30 days vs. 6.0 b.p.m. (SD 10.0) with placebo; at 18 months, the reduction from baseline was 13.6 b.p.m. (SD 12.2) with ivabradine and 5.9 b.p.m. (SD 11.9) with placebo.


Figure 1
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1 Resting heart rate during the study in patients with limiting angina at baseline (A) and in patients with limiting angina and resting heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. at baseline (B).

 
The effects of treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in the subpopulations with and without limiting angina are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Primary endpoint was reached by 88 patients in the ivabradine group (12.0%) vs. 120 in the placebo group (15.5%) (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58–1.00, P = 0.05) (Figure 2A). In the subpopulation with limiting angina and heart rate ≥70 b.p.m., 43 patients reached primary endpoint with ivabradine (12.3%) vs. 65 with placebo (17.9%) (HR, 0.69, 95% CI, 0.47–1.01, P = 0.06) (Figure 2B). There were also treatment-related reductions in the relative risk of all the mortality or HF endpoints (Tables 3 and 4), though none of these reached statistical significance. There was a reduction in hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI with ivabradine (HR, 0.58, 95% CI, 0.37–0.92, P = 0.021) (Figure 3A). The effect on coronary outcomes was even stronger in the subpopulation with limiting angina and heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. with substantial treatment-related reductions in both hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI (HR, 0.27, 95% CI, 0.11–0.66, P = 0.002) (Figure 3B) and coronary revascularization (HR, 0.41, 95% CI, 0.17–0.99, P = 0.040).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Effect of ivabradine on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without limiting angina symptoms at baseline

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Effect of ivabradine on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without limiting angina symptoms at baseline and heart rate ≥70 b.p.m.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 2 Kaplan–Meier time-to-event curves by treatment group for composite primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and hospitalization for new-onset or worsening heart failure) in patients with limiting angina at baseline (A) and in patients with limiting angina and resting heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. at baseline (B). HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 3 Kaplan–Meier time-to-event curves by treatment group for the secondary endpoint of hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with limiting angina at baseline (A) and in patients with limiting angina and resting heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. at baseline (B). HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval.

 
In the complementary subgroup of patients with limiting angina and resting heart rate <70 b.p.m., there was a trend also towards treatment-related reductions in the relative risk of the main cardiovascular events, though these were less marked and not significant (primary endpoint, HR, 0.85, 95% CI, 0.57–1.26, P = 0.41; cardiovascular death, HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.5–1.55, P = 0.65; hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI, HR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.49–1.50, P = 0.59; hospitalization for HF, HR, 0.73, 95% CI, 0.38–1.42, P = 0.36). In contrast, in patients without limiting angina and heart rate <70 b.p.m. there may be a possible increase in the relative risk of the main cardiovascular events (primary endpoint, HR, 1.19, 95% CI, 1.01–1.39, P = 0.033; cardiovascular death, HR, 1.19, 95% CI, 0.96–1.48, P = 0.11; hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI, HR, 1.33, 95% CI, 0.97–1.82, P = 0.07; hospitalization for HF, HR, 1.04, 95% CI, 0.82–1.36, P = 0.73).

The safety and tolerability of ivabradine was found to be similar to that in the main study. The rate of treatment discontinuation in patients in the subpopulation with limiting angina, who took at least one dose of the study drug, was 23% (170/734 patients) with ivabradine vs. 15% (115/772) with placebo. This difference can be explained by the difference in the rates of bradycardia, mainly protocol-driven withdrawal of patients with heart rate <50 b.p.m. independently of the presence of symptoms. Thus, 82 patients (11%) in the ivabradine group withdrew due to bradycardia, only 12 (15%, i.e. 12/82) of whom were symptomatic; 11 patients (1.4%) in the placebo group withdrew due to bradycardia, 5 (42%, i.e. 5/12) of whom were symptomatic. Four patients withdrew due to phosphenes (3 [0.4%] with ivabradine vs. 1 [0.1%] with placebo). Serious adverse events were experienced by 135 patients (18%) in the ivabradine group vs. 144 patients in the placebo group (19%), with no significant difference in any case.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Funding
 References
 
Treatment with ivabradine in the BEAUTIFUL subpopulation with limiting angina was associated with a 24% reduction in risk for primary endpoint and a 31% reduction in risk for primary endpoint in patients with limiting angina and heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. The primary endpoint appears to be driven by the coronary outcomes since there was a treatment-related 42% reduction in the risk for hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI in patients with limiting angina. There were consistent, smaller reductions in all other endpoints examined, with 13, 12, and 28% reductions in all-cause, cardiovascular, and cardiac death, respectively; a 16% reduction in new-onset or worsening HF; and a 30% reduction in the risk for coronary revascularization. The reduction in the risk of cardiovascular outcomes was even greater in patients with angina and heart rate ≥70 b.p.m., notably with a significant 73% ivabradine-related reduction in hospitalization for fatal and non-fatal MI and a 59% reduction in coronary revascularization.

Our results should be compared with those from the main BEAUTIFUL study,5 in which ivabradine failed to have an impact on the composite primary endpoint. This was attributed to the domination of HF events in the primary endpoint. In the anginal population described herein, the primary endpoint has proportionately more coronary events, notably MI. This reinforces the observation that heart rate reduction is most effective on coronary outcomes. Moreover, the incidence of admission to hospital for fatal and non-fatal MI was markedly higher in the anginal population receiving placebo than in the main study (whole population, 6.5 vs. 4.2%; population with heart rate ≥70 b.p.m., 6.3 vs. 4.9%), while the rates for admission to hospital for HF were lower in the anginal population (5.3 vs. 7.9%; and 5.5 vs. 10.1%, respectively). The anti-anginal and anti-ischaemic properties of the If inhibitor ivabradine are well established,8,9,17,18 and it is currently indicated in the symptomatic treatment of angina. Our results suggest that the beneficial effect of ivabradine on the outcome may be mediated through an effect on myocardial ischaemia and possibly a reduction in the incidence of MI.

Our data are consistent with previous studies showing that the symptoms of angina are associated with higher rates of admission to hospital for coronary events.19 Recent data from a community cohort study in Ireland indicate that patients with angina have a similar prognosis to those with a history of acute MI or revascularization.20 This is in line with other reports that the presence of limiting angina symptoms places patients at increased cardiovascular risk.11–15 This appears to be true for patients with stable angina pectoris12,15 and for patients with stable CAD with and without LV dysfunction.11,13,14

The mechanism of action by which limiting angina, i.e. ischaemic pain, is predictive of coronary events remains unclear, though it is most likely related to the obstructive nature of coronary atherosclerosis.12,14 Ischaemic pain is usually indicative of an obstructive lesion,12 while disease progression and the occurrence of an acute coronary event may be related to overall plaque burden and plaque vulnerability. Ivabradine's anti-ischaemic effect has been traced to its selective heart rate reduction via inhibition of the pacemaker current in the sinoatrial node.21 This has been clearly demonstrated in experimental and clinical studies.8,9,22–24 Furthermore, recent experimental data suggest that ivabradine can improve endothelial function and attenuate the progression of atherosclerosis.25,26 These mechanisms require further investigation in clinical settings.

The heart rate reductions observed with treatment with ivabradine in patients included in the BEAUTIFUL study, who presented with limiting angina, were between 8 and 10 b.p.m., with greater reductions in patients with heart rate ≥70 b.p.m. These reductions were similar to those observed in the main BEAUTIFUL study population.5 Our analysis also confirmed the good safety and tolerability of ivabradine in patients with limiting angina, as observed in the BEAUTIFUL study5 and in other clinical trials in anginal populations.8,9

The patients in the BEAUTIFUL population were treated according to current guidelines,5 and the baseline characteristics presented here indicate that this is also true of the subpopulation with limiting angina. The rates of use of β-blocker are particularly high (90% of the patients with limiting angina). However, nearly half of these patients failed to reach target dose of β-blocker, for reasons including bradycardia, hypotension, and sexual dysfunction. Similar suboptimal β-blocker therapy, in terms of uptitration to target dose, has been reported in surveys in patients with HF, post-MI, and stable angina,27–29 which found low rates of uptitration after initiation of treatment. In this context, a recent study has demonstrated that ivabradine is safe in combination with the β-blocker atenolol, and indeed can further improve exercise capacity.22

To our knowledge, cardiovascular outcomes have not been shown to improve with an anti-anginal treatment in patients with stable angina pectoris. The effects of calcium channel blockade on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity were tested in CAMELOT (Comparison of AMlodipine vs. Enalapril to Limit the Occurrence of Thrombosis) and ACTION (A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine),30,31 but neither trial demonstrated a significant reduction in major cardiovascular events. Although there were lower event rates for the composite primary endpoint of CAD mortality, non-fatal MI, or unplanned hospitalization for cardiac chest pain and for the composite endpoint of CAD mortality, non-fatal MI, or unstable angina with nicorandil vs. placebo in IONA (Impact Of Nicorandil in Angina), this trial was not powered to show a benefit on CAD mortality or non-fatal MI, and all-cause mortality and therefore we are unable to draw conclusions regarding effects on these endponts.32 On the other hand, the benefits of β-blockade in terms of reduction of mortality are well known, but are limited to post-MI and HF.33–36 Moreover, most of these post-MI trials with β-blockers were performed before the era of extensive use of ACE inhibitors and statins,10 which leaves uncertainty regarding their efficacy on top of more recent management strategies. From these results in high-risk patients, it has been extrapolated that β-blockade may have an effect on prognosis in angina pectoris, but this has never been evaluated in randomized controlled trials.10

There are a number of limitations to our study. First, this is a post hoc analysis, and therefore the results should be considered as hypothesis-generating, and will be tested in the SIGNIFY study. Despite the exploratory nature of this analysis, we have observed consistent reductions in all outcomes. In addition, the sample size is relevant, and the results are plausible and in line with previous data for ivabradine in a pure anginal population.9,22 Another limitation to our study is that anginal symptoms were measured only at baseline, and there may have been changes in symptoms during the study. Finally, the constraints of the design of the BEAUTIFUL study16 meant that limiting angina symptoms were measured using the NYHA classification, which depends on disability due to a number of factors other than angina, such as LV dysfunction and HF. For this reason, we also included the patient report of anginal pain as a criterion for inclusion in the subpopulation with limiting angina. This method of identification may well have excluded patients with angina pectoris who were controlled by anti-anginal medication or patients with limiting anginal symptoms who also had symptoms associated with HF that were more significant.

In conclusion, this post hoc analysis proposes that the anti-anginal agent ivabradine may reduce major cardiovascular events in patients with stable CAD and LVSD who present with limiting angina. Also, our results suggest that there is no indication for treating patients with a heart rate less than 70 b.p.m. with ivabradine if they have significant LV dysfunction (EF <40%) and do not have symptoms of limiting angina. At this stage these findings can only be considered as hypothesis-generating and the benefits of ivabradine in patients with limiting angina will be tested in the SIGNIFY study.


   Funding
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Funding
References
 
Funded by Servier.

Conflict of interest: K.F., G.S., M.T., R.F. have all received fees from Servier. In addition, K.F., G.S., M.T., and R.F. have received honoraria from Servier, and K.F., G.S., M.T., R.F., and I.F. have received research grants from Servier.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Funding
 References
 

  1. Fox K, Ford I, Steg PG, Tendera M, Robertson M, Ferrari R. Heart rate as a prognostic risk factor in patients with coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2008) 372:817–821.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Diaz A, Bourassa MG, Guertin MC, Tardif JC. Long-term prognostic value of resting heart rate in patients with suspected or proven coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J (2005) 26:967–974.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Kolloch R, Legler UF, Champion A, Cooper-Dehoff RM, Handberg E, Zhou Q, Pepine CJ. Impact of resting heart rate on outcomes in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease: findings from the INternational VErapamil-SR/trandolapril STudy (INVEST). Eur Heart J (2008) 29:1327–1334.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Fox K, Borer JS, Camm AJ, Danchin N, Ferrari R, Lopez Sendon JL, Steg PG, Tardif JC, Tavazzi L, Tendera M. Resting heart rate in cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol (2007) 50:823–830.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Fox K, Ford I, Steg PG, Tendera M, Ferrari R. Ivabradine for patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet (2008) 372:807–816.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Giannoglou GD, Chatzizisis YS, Zamboulis C, Parcharidis GE, Mikhailidis DP, Louridas GE. Elevated heart rate and atherosclerosis: An overview of the pathogenetic mechanisms. Int J Cardiol (2008) 126:302–312.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Heidland UE, Strauer BE. Left ventricular muscle mass and elevated heart rate are associated with coronary plaque disruption. Circulation (2001) 104:1477–1482.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Borer JS, Fox K, Jaillon P, Lerebours G. Antianginal and antiischemic effects of ivabradine, an I(f) inhibitor, in stable angina: a randomized, double-blind, multicentered, placebo-controlled trial. Circulation (2003) 107:817–823.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Tardif JC, Ford I, Tendera M, Bourassa MG, Fox K. Efficacy of ivabradine, a new selective I(f) inhibitor, compared with atenolol in patients with chronic stable angina. Eur Heart J (2005) 26:2529–2536.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Management of stable angina pectoris. Recommendations of the Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J (2006) 27:1341–1381.[Free Full Text]
  11. Califf RM, Mark DB, Harrell FE Jr, Hlatky MA, Lee KL, Rosati RA, Pryor DB. Importance of clinical measures of ischemia in the prognosis of patients with documented coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol (1988) 11:20–26.[Abstract]
  12. Gehi AK, Ali S, Na B, Schiller NB, Whooley MA. Inducible ischemia and the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in outpatients with stable coronary heart disease: the heart and soul study. Arch Intern Med (2008) 168:1423–1428.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Hultgren HN, Peduzzi P. Relation of severity of symptoms to prognosis in stable angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol (1984) 54:988–993.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Mozaffarian D, Bryson CL, Spertus JA, McDonell MB, Fihn SD. Anginal symptoms consistently predict total mortality among outpatients with coronary artery disease. Am Heart J (2003) 146:1015–1022.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Daly CA, De Stavola B, Sendon JL, Tavazzi L, Boersma E, Clemens F, Danchin N, Delahaye F, Gitt A, Julian D, Mulcahy D, Ruzyllo W, Thygesen K, Verheugt F, Fox KM. Predicting prognosis in stable angina–results from the Euro heart survey of stable angina: prospective observational study. Br Med J (2006) 332:262–267.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Fox K, Ferrari R, Tendera M, Steg PG, Ford I. Rationale and design of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ivabradine in patients with stable coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: the morBidity-mortality EvAlUation of the If inhibitor ivabradine in patients with coronary disease and left ventricULar dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL) Study. Am Heart J (2006) 152:860–866.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Lopez-Bescos L, Filipova S, Martos R. Long-term safety and efficacy of ivabradine in patients with chronic stable angina. Cardiology (2007) 108:387–396.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Ruzyllo W, Tendera M, Ford I, Fox KM. Antianginal efficacy and safety of ivabradine compared with amlodipine in patients with stable effort angina pectoris: a 3-month randomised, double-blind, multicentre, noninferiority trial. Drugs (2007) 67:393–405.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Spertus JA, Jones P, McDonell M, Fan V, Fihn SD. Health status predicts long-term outcome in outpatients with coronary disease. Circulation (2002) 106:43–49.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Buckley B, Murphy AW. Do patients with angina alone have a more benign prognosis than patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or both? Findings from a community cohort study. Heart (2009) 95:461–467.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. DiFrancesco D, Camm AJ. Heart rate lowering by specific and selective If current inhibition with ivabradine. A new therapeutic perspective in cardiovascular disease. Drugs (2004) 64:1757–1765.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Tardif JC, Ponikowski P, Kahan T. Efficacy of the If current inhibitor ivabradine in patients with chronic stable angina receiving beta-blocker therapy: a 4 month, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Heart J (2009) 30:540–548.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Heusch G, Skyschally A, Gres P, Van Caster P, Schilawa D, Schulz R. Improvement of regional myocardial blood flow and function and reduction of infarct size with ivabradine: protection beyond heart rate reduction. Eur Heart J (2008) 29:2265–2275.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Vilaine JP, Bidouard JP, Lesage L, Reure H, Peglion JL. Anti-ischemic effects of ivabradine, a selective heart rate-reducing agent, in exercise-induced myocardial ischemia in pigs. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol (2003) 42:688–696.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Triggle CR. Defying the economists: a decrease in heart rate improves not only cardiac but also endothelial function. Br J Pharmacol (2008) 154:727–728.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Custodis F, Baumhakel M, Schlimmer N, List F, Gensch C, Bohm M, Laufs U. Heart rate reduction by ivabradine reduces oxidative stress, improves endothelial function, and prevents atherosclerosis in apolipoprotein E-deficient mice. Circulation (2008) 117:2377–2387.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Wiest FC, Bryson CL, Burman M, McDonell MB, Henikoff JG, Fihn SD. Suboptimal pharmacotherapeutic management of chronic stable angina in the primary care setting. Am J Med (2004) 117:234–241.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  28. Gislason GH, Rasmussen JN, Abildstrom SZ, Gadsboll N, Buch P, Friberg J, Rasmussen S, Kober L, Stender S, Madsen M, Torp-Pedersen C. Long-term compliance with beta-blockers,angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors,and statins after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J (2006) 27:1153–1158.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM, Stough WG, Gheorghiade M, Greenberg BH, O'Connor CM, Sun JL, Yancy CW, Young JB. Dosing of beta-blocker therapy before, during, and after hospitalization for heart failure (from Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure). Am J Cardiol (2008) 102:1524–1529.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  30. Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, Libby P, Thompson PD, Ghali M, Garza D, Berman L, Shi H, Buebendorf E, Topol EJ. Effect of antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease and normal blood pressure: the CAMELOT study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA (2004) 292:2217–2225.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Poole Wilson PA, Lubsen J, Kirwan BA, Van Dalen FJ, Wagener G, Danchinn N, Just H, Fox KA, Pocock SJ, Clayton TC, Motro M, Parker JD, Bourassa MG, Dart AM, Hildebrandt P, Hjalmarson A, Kragten JA, Molhoek GP, Otterstad JE, Seabra Gomes R, Soler Soler J, Weber S. Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with stable angina requiring treatment (ACTION trial): randomised controlled trial. Lancet (2004) 364:849–857.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Dargie HJ. Effect of nicorandil on coronary events in patients with stable angina: the Impact Of Nicorandil in Angina (IONA) randomised trial. Lancet (2002) 359:1269–1275.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Freemantle N, Cleland J, Young P, Mason J, Harrison J. Beta blockade after myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta regression analysis. Br Med J (1999) 318:1730–1737.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Dargie HJ, Lechat P, Erdmann E, Follath F, Hoglund C, Lopez Sendon JL, Mareyev V, Remme WJ, Sadowski Z, Seabra Gomes RJ, Zannas F, Wehrlen Grandjean M, Funck Brentano C, Hansen S, Hohnloser S, Vanoli E, Jaillon P, De Baker G, Dahlstr'M U, Hill C, Leizorovicz A, Bugnard F, Rolland C, Wiemann H, Verkenne P, Arab T, Cussac N, Dussous V, Haise S, Funck Brentano C. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial. Lancet (1999) 353:9–13.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Hjalmarson A, Goldstein S, Fagerberg B, Wedel H, Waagstrein F, Kjekshus J, Wikstrand J, Westergren G, Thimell M. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Lancet (1999) 353:2001–2007.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  36. Packer M, Coats AJ, Fowler MB, Katus HA, Krum H, Mohacsi P, Rouleau JL, Tendera M, Castaigne A, Roecker EB, Schultz MK, De Mets DL. Effect of carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med (2001) 344:1651–1658.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in EHJ:

A BEAUTIFUL lesson—ivabradine protects from ischaemia, but not from heart failure: through heart rate reduction or more?
Gerd Heusch
EHJ 2009 30: 2300-2301. [Extract] [FREE Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
G. Heusch
A BEAUTIFUL lesson--ivabradine protects from ischaemia, but not from heart failure: through heart rate reduction or more?
Eur. Heart J., October 1, 2009; 30(19): 2300 - 2301.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
30/19/2337    most recent
ehp358v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in EHJ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fox, K.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fox, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?