Ivabradine use in patients with HFrEF in the heart failure multidisciplinary program (PIC) in a private hospital: first registration and 3-years follow up, Central American (CA) region

Abstract Introduction and objectives: Heart rate (HR) elevation in patients (p) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is related to increased mortality and hospitalization for HF; its reduction improves the filling of the left ventricle, increases the myocardial oxygen supply and reduces its consumption, all of which is beneficial in p with impaired left ventricular systolic function. Use of ivabradine (IBRA) in p with HFrEF, in sinus rhythm (SR) and HR > 70 beats per minute (bpm), reduces hospitalizations for HF and mortality for HF. The management of p with advanced HF in PIC ensures a morbidity and mortality reduction with the highest levels of evidence. The first retrospective analysis in a PIC at a private hospital in CA, during 3 years of all case p with HFrEF who received treatments (tx) recommended by International Guidelines and maintained HR > 70 bpm at rest in SR, with the purpose of reducing it. The use of baseline clinical data, natriuretic peptides (NP) and LVEF at rest, compared with same variables in follow up, in a region where these PICs are borning. Methods: 26 p with HFrEF for 3 years of PIC. General data, tx, baseline clinical condition, BP, pulse, NYHA, quality of life (QoL), NP, LVEF by Doppler Echocardiography were registered, and IBRA tx response was compared baseline and end. 18 p completed data; 8 incomplete (baseline or follow-up data). Results: Ambulatory p, with HFrEF (<35%) and SR HR > 70 bpm; age 78 years, 17 men. Tx average time with IBRA 11 months, 53.5% more than 1 year. Baseline medications, 93% ACEIs or ARAs II; 85% beta-blockers and 74% MRA, maximum tolerated doses. No patient used IBRA prior baseline. 20% CRT. Variables behavior assessed: HR (baseline 89 bpm vs 62 bpm after IBRA 2 months); BP (baseline systolic 100 mmHg vs 123 mmHg end; baseline diastolic 55 mmHg vs 65 mmHg end); LVEF (baseline 29% vs 35% end); BNP baseline 7,550 pg/ml vs 1,935 pg/ml end. 5 p improved NYHA III to NYHA I, 5 p improved NYHA III to NYHA II, 3 had deterioration NYHA III; rest remained unchanged. 77% p no dose adjustment required (HR below 70 bpm). 6 p began with 2.5 mg every 12 hours and increased to 5 mg every 12 hours after 15 days. By KCCQ-12 increase 42 to 59 points. 1 discontinuation case of IBRA due to bradycardia (HR < 50 bpm). 2 p hospitalized, one pneumonia and one HF decompensation. 3 dead: 1 myocardial infarction, 2 HF progression. Conclusions: 26 p studied, registered and treated with IBRA in the PIC at private hospital in CA, most of them registered metric improvements identified as prognosis factors (HR, BP, LVEF, NP, NYHA and QoL). This assessment, registration and follow up of p with HFrEF with use of IBRA in a PIC, is the first one carried out in CA. Results reflect the usual clinical practice in a PIC, with cardiologists and nurses trained to support and follow-up p, and evidence the importance of PIC when using and prescribing drugs like IBRA, in a region where these PICs are rare.