4.8 Article

Antianginal and antiischemic effects of ivabradine, an If inhibitor, in stable angina -: A randomized, double-blind, multicentered, placebo-controlled trial

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 107, 期 6, 页码 817-823

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000048143.25023.87

关键词

angina; coronary disease; ischemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Heart rate reduction should benefit patients with chronic stable angina by improving myocardial perfusion and reducing myocardial oxygen demand. This study evaluated the antianginal and antiischemic effects of ivabradine, a new heart rate-lowering agent that acts specifically on the sinoatrial node. Methods and Results-In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 360 patients with a greater than or equal to3-month history of chronic stable angina were randomly assigned to receive ivabradine (2.5, 5, or 10 mg BID) or placebo for 2 weeks, followed by an open-label 2- or 3-month extension on ivabradine (10 mg BID) and a 1-week randomized withdrawal to ivabradine (10 mg BID) or placebo. Primary efficacy criteria were changes in time to 1-mm ST-segment depression and time to limiting angina during bicycle exercise (exercise tolerance tests), performed at trough of drug activity. In the per-protocol population (n=257), time to 1-mm ST-segment depression increased in the 5 and 10 mg BID groups (P<0.005); time to limiting angina increased in the 10 mg BID group (P<0.05). Deterioration in all exercise tolerance test parameters occurred in patients who received placebo during randomized withdrawal (all P<0.02) but not in those still receiving ivabradine. No rebound phenomena were observed on treatment cessation. Conclusions-Ivabradine produces dose-dependent improvements in exercise tolerance and time to development of ischemia during exercise. These results suggest that ivabradine, representing a novel class of antianginal drugs, is effective and safe during 3 months of use; longer-term safety requires additional assessment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据