4.5 Article

Rationale and design of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcome trial of ivabradine in chronic heart failure: the Systolic Heart Failure Treatment with the I-f Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIFT)

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 75-81

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfp154

关键词

Chronic heart failure; Heart rate; Ivabradine; Randomized trial; Treatment

资金

  1. Servier

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Elevated heart rate is a significant marker for mortality and morbidity in cardiovascular disease including heart failure. Despite background treatment with a beta-blocker, many patients with heart failure and low ejection fraction maintain a heart rate above 70 b.p.m. Ivabradine reduces heart rate directly through inhibition of the I-f ionic current. SHIFT is a randomized, double-blind study designed to compare ivabradine with placebo on outcomes in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure (NYHA class II-IV), left-ventricular ejection fraction < 35%, and a prior hospitalization for worsening heart failure within the previous 12 months. Randomized treatment is given on top of guidelines-based therapy for chronic heart failure, including a beta-blocker at optimized dose. Resting heart rate at baseline must be >= 70 b.p.m. The primary endpoint is the composite of the time to first event of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Secondary endpoints include all-cause, cardiovascular and heart failure mortality, and hospitalization. The randomized treatment period lasts approximately 12-48 months. The study will include approximately 6500 patients and will continue until >= 1600 primary endpoints have occurred. The first patient was randomized in October 2006, and the study is expected to end in 2010. The SHIFT study will assess if a heart rate reduction by direct sinus node inhibition can reduce cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction.

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

4.5
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