Efficacy of ivabradine, a new selective If inhibitor, compared with atenolol in patients with chronic stable angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Ivabradine, a new I(f) inhibitor which acts specifically on the pacemaker activity of the sinoatrial node, is a pure heart rate lowering agent. Ivabradine has shown anti-ischaemic and anti-anginal activity in a placebo-controlled trial. The objective of this study was to compare the anti-anginal and anti-ischaemic effects of ivabradine and the beta-blocker atenolol. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a double-blinded trial, 939 patients with stable angina were randomized to receive ivabradine 5 mg bid for 4 weeks and then either 7.5 or 10 mg bid for 12 weeks or atenolol 50 mg od for 4 weeks and then 100 mg od for 12 weeks. Patients underwent treadmill exercise tests at randomization (M(0)) and after 4 (M(1)) and 16 (M(4)) weeks of therapy. Increases in total exercise duration (TED) at trough at M(4) were 86.8+/-129.0 and 91.7+/-118.8 s with ivabradine 7.5 and 10 mg, respectively and 78.8+/-133.4 s with atenolol 100 mg. Mean differences (SE) when compared with atenolol 100 mg were 10.3 (9.4) and 15.7 (9.5) s in favour of ivabradine 7.5 and 10 mg (P<0.001 for non-inferiority). TED at M(1) improved by 64.2+/-104.0 s with ivabradine 5 mg and by 60.0+/-114.4 s with atenolol 50 mg (P<0.001 for non-inferiority). Non-inferiority of ivabradine was shown at all doses and for all criteria. The number of angina attacks was decreased by two-thirds with both ivabradine and atenolol. CONCLUSION: Ivabradine is as effective as atenolol in patients with stable angina.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".