American heart journal
-
American heart journal · Apr 1995
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical TrialIntravenous sotalol for the termination of supraventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation and flutter: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Sotalol Multicenter Study Group.
Sotalol is an antiarrhythmic agent with combined beta-blocking and class III antiarrhythmic properties. This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of sotalol in terminating supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), atrial fibrillation (AFib), and atrial flutter (AFl). Ninety-three patients with spontaneous or induced SVT (n = 45) or AF (AFib or AFl; n = 48) with a ventricular rate of > or = 120 beats/min were studied. ⋯ The most common adverse events were hypotension and dyspnea. During the double-blind phase they occurred in 10% of patients who received placebo, 9% of those who received 1.0 mg/kg i.v. sotalol (p = NS vs placebo), and 10% of those who received 1.5 mg/kg i.v. sotalol (p = NS vs placebo). Most of these events were mild to moderate, but all were transient and clinically manageable.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
-
American heart journal · Apr 1994
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical TrialImplantable cardioverter defibrillator compared with antiarrhythmic drug treatment in cardiac arrest survivors (the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg).
In 1987, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled study, was started in survivors of sudden cardiac death resulting from documented ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Through December 1991, 230 survivors (46 women, 184 men; mean age 57 +/- 11 years) of cardiac arrest caused by ventricular tachyarrhythmias were randomly assigned to receive either oral propafenone (56 patients), amiodarone (56 patients), or metoprolol (59 patients) or to have an implantable defibrillator (59 patients) without concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint of the study was total mortality. ⋯ This article presents preliminary results of the comparison of implantable defibrillator therapy with propafenone therapy. A significantly higher incidence of total mortality, sudden death (12%), and cardiac arrest recurrence or sudden death (23%) was found in the propafenone group compared with the implantable defibrillator-treated patients (0%, p < 0.05). It was concluded that, in survivors of cardiac arrest, propafenone treatment is less effective than implantable defibrillator treatment.
-
American heart journal · Nov 1992
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA prospective study of the efficacy and safety of adjuvant metoprolol and xamoterol in combination with amiodarone for resistant ventricular tachycardia associated with impaired left ventricular function.
Combination antiarrhythmic drug therapy may be more effective than treatment with a single agent for control of refractory cases of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). In a prospective randomized crossover study of 20 patients with impaired left ventricular function (ejection fraction of 28% +/- 8%) and recurrent VT in spite of treatment with amiodarone, we compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant therapy with metoprolol, 50 mg two times daily and xamoterol, 200 mg two times daily. Metoprolol caused hemodynamic deterioration in five patients, and only one also experienced intolerance to xamoterol. ⋯ Both beta-blockers suppressed exercise-induced VT in 3 of 4 patients, and addition of xamoterol significantly increased treadmill exercise duration (7.1 +/- 1.8 min) compared with administration of amiodarone alone (3.8 +/- 1.5 min; p < 0.01). Fourteen patients were discharged with prescriptions for amiodarone-beta-blocker combinations. During a mean follow-up period of 13 months (range, 2 to 24 months), there were three cases of recurrent VT (in all patients VT remained inducible) and no sudden deaths.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
American heart journal · Sep 1992
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of the acute hypotensive effects of two different doses of nifedipine.
To determine whether a dose of 5 mg of nifedipine would be useful in the treatment of hypertensive emergencies, we compared the acute hypotensive effects of two different doses of nifedipine, 5 mg and 10 mg, in patients with severe hypertension. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, 30 consecutive black patients with diastolic blood pressure that was equal to or greater than 115 mm Hg received either a 5 mg or 10 mg nifedipine capsule and a placebo capsule, which matched that of the alternative strength. Patients were asked to bite the capsules and swallow the contents. ⋯ Mean systolic blood pressure was reduced from 191.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 170.8 to 212.7 mm Hg) to 157.9 mm Hg (137.0 to 178.9 mm Hg) and 206.1 mm Hg (185.1 to 227.0 mm Hg) to 153.7 mm Hg (132.8 to 174.7 mm Hg) in patients who were given 5 mg and 10 mg doses of nifedipine, respectively. Mean diastolic blood pressure in the group of patients that received 5 mg doses of nifedipine decreased from 128.2 mm Hg (115.6 to 140.7 mm Hg) to 105.2 mm Hg (92.7 to 117.7 mm Hg); the corresponding values in the group that received 10 mg doses of nifedipine were 129.9 mm Hg (117.4 to 142.5 mm Hg) and 97.5 mm Hg (85.0 to 110.1 mm Hg), respectively. The minimum mean systolic blood pressures occurred 20 and 25 minutes after administration of the 5 mg and 10 mg capsules, respectively; the minimum diastolic blood pressures were reached after 20 and 30 minutes, respectively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
American heart journal · Apr 1992
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical TrialRelative importance of emergency medical system transport and the prehospital electrocardiogram on reducing hospital time delay to therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a preliminary report from the Cincinnati Heart Project.
Substantial time delays from symptom onset to diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction have been demonstrated. To determine the relative importance of prehospital mode of patient transport and the relative impact of emergency medical system transport with or without a prehospital cellular electrocardiogram (ECG) on hospital time delays to initiation of thrombolytic therapy, four prospective parallel groups of patients with acute myocardial infarction were evaluated. ⋯ Specialized emergency medical system transport alone did not facilitate in-hospital initiation of thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction when compared with those brought by local ambulance or by private automobile. A significant reduction in hospital time delay to treatment was observed only in patients transported by the emergency medical system who had cellular transmission of a prehospital 12-lead ECG from the field.