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

Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients

AbstractThis review summarizes the major long-term (≥10 to 15 years) patient outcomes after insertion of many Food and Drug Administration approved prosthetic heart valves (PHV). Mechanical PHV was associated with a better survival (p < 0.02) at 15 years after aortic valve replacement (AVR) than with a bioprosthesis in the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) trial. In both the DVA and the Edinburgh Heart Valve trials, bioprosthesis were associated with structural valve deterioration (SVD) (mitral valve replacement [MVR] > AVR) and, therefore, for replacement of the PHV. Thromboembolism and bleeding rate were higher with mechanical PHV. Mortality after AVR and MVR is high at 10 to 15 years because of the associated comorbid conditions and older age of patients. Outcomes with “new” good valves are similar to that with “older” good valves. Complication rates of thromboembolism, bleeding, endocarditis, and leak vary widely; the rates of these complications are not different among different mechanical PHV and among different bioprosthetic PHV. Structural valve deterioration is rare with mechanical PHV. Structural valve deterioration of bioprosthesis after MVR is higher than after AVR; after AVR, homografts and bioprosthesis have similar rates of SVD. The exact rate of SVD of the pulmonary autograft is uncertain. Valve prosthesis-patient mismatch is clinically important when it is severe and in selected patients when it is moderate. Bioprosthesis have a low rate of SVD in the older patient and, thus, are the PHV of choice for AVR in patients ≥60 to 65 years of age and for MVR in patients ≥65 to 70 years of age; in younger patients mechanical valves are the PHV of choice. In individual patients there may be exceptions to these general rules