Response of angina and ischemia to long-term treatment in patients with chronic stable angina: A double-blind randomised individualized dosing trial of nifedipine, propranolol and their combination

AbstractSeventy-four patients with chronic stable mild angina, mild coronary artery disease (83% had one- or two-vessel disease) and normal left ventricular function were studied to measure the response of treadmill exercise performance and painful and silent ischemia in the ambulatory setting to randomly assigned treatment with nifedipine or propranolol and their combination; titration to maximal tolerated dosages was performed in doubleblind manner.At 3 months both nifedipine and propranolol reduced the weekly angina rate (p < 0.05); during treadmill exercise testing, increases (p < 0.05) were noted in time to angina and total exercise time and decreases in maximal ST depression at the end of exercise. There were no differences between the responses to nifedipine and propranolol and no significant additional changes were seen after another 3 months of therapy. The combination of nifedipine and propranolol reduced the number of patients with angina on exercise treadmill testing from 64% to 38% (p < 0.05).During ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring before treatment, there were 1.4 ± 2.4 (mean ± SD) episodes/24 h of painful ischemia and a very low silent ischemia frequency: mean 1.1 ± 2.7 episodes/24 h, mean duration 16 ± 25 min/24 h. Treatment with propranolol and nifedipine resulted in reduction of episodes and duration of painful and painless ischemia; approximately 77% of patients were free of all ischemic episodes.It is concluded that patients with chronic stable mild angina have a low incidence of silent ischemia. Nifedipine or propranolol alone, titrated to individualized maximally tolerated dosages, are equally effective in long-term control of painful and painless ischemia, anginal episodes and exercise-induced ischemia. Combination therapy further reduced only exercise-induced angina and maximal exercise-induced ST depression

Absence of carious lesions at margins of glass-ionomer cement and amalgam restorations: An update of systematic review evidence

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This article aims to update the existing systematic review evidence elicited by Mickenautsch et al. up to 18 January 2008 (published in the European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry in 2009) and addressing the review question of whether, in the same dentition and same cavity class, glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restored cavities show less recurrent carious lesions on cavity margins than cavities restored with amalgam.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic literature search was extended beyond the original search date and a further hand-search and reference check was done. The quality of accepted trials was assessed, using updated quality criteria, and the risk of bias was investigated in more depth than previously reported. In addition, the focus of quantitative synthesis was shifted to single datasets extracted from the accepted trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The database search (up to 10 August 2010) identified 1 new trial, in addition to the 9 included in the original systematic review, and 11 further trials were included after a hand-search and reference check. Of these 21 trials, 11 were excluded and 10 were accepted for data extraction and quality assessment. Thirteen dichotomous datasets of primary outcomes and 4 datasets with secondary outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were used in combining clinically homogenous datasets. The overall results of the computed datasets suggest that GIC has a higher caries-preventive effect than amalgam for restorations in permanent teeth. No difference was found for restorations in the primary dentition.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This outcome is in agreement with the conclusions of the original systematic review. Although the findings of the trials identified in this update may be considered to be less affected by attrition- and publication bias, their risk of selection- and detection/performance bias is high. Thus, verification of the currently available results requires further high-quality randomised control trials.</p