ArticleCardiology research2018
Ivabradine Versus Beta-Blockers in Mitral Stenosis in Sinus Rhythm: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Cardiology research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Valvular Heart Disease Emergencies: A Comprehensive Review Focusing on the Initial Approach in the Emergency Department.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023Review
- Ivabradine Versus Beta-Blockers in Mitral Stenosis in Sinus Rhythm: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Cardiology research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSymptoms of mitral stenosis (MS) are worsened during tachycardia and exercise. Beta-blockers are used in controlling heart rate (HR) in MS, resulting in symptom improvement, but coming with significant side effects. Ivabradine has a selective action on the sinus node devoid of the usual side effects of beta-blockers. Small studies have recently investigated the role of ivabradine in MS in sinus rhythm. Our aim was to determine the efficacy of ivabradine, compared to beta-blockers, in terms of exercise duration, maximum HR achieved, resting HR, mean gradient, and working capacity among patients with MS in sinus rhythm.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of studies using MEDLINE, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Clinical Key, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases in all languages and examined reference lists of studies. We included studies if they are: 1) randomized controlled trials comparing ivabradine and beta-blockers; 2) of adults ≥ 19 years old with MS in sinus rhythm; and 3) reported data on exercise duration, maximum HR achieved, resting HR, mean gradient, and working capacity. Studies identified were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias. We used inverse variance analysis of fixed effects to compute for mean difference, carried out using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.
resultsPooled analysis from five identified trials showed that among patients with MS in sinus rhythm, ivabradine was better compared to beta-blockers in total exercise duration (mean difference: 32.73 s (95% CI: 12.19, 53.27; P = 0.002; I
conclusionsIvabradine is better or comparable to beta-blockers in terms of the outcomes measured, and may be considered as an alternative for patients with MS in sinus rhythm who are intolerant to beta-blockers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.