Evidence Hub

Clinical and hemodynamic evaluation of propranolol in combination with verapamil, nifedipine and diltiazem in exertional angina pectoris: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, crossover study

Johnston DL, Lesoway R, Humen DP, Kostuk WJ

The American journal of cardiology, 1985

19 participants

Abstract

The clinical and hemodynamic effects of propranolol, propranolol-verapamil (P-V), propranolol-nifedipine (P-N) and propranolol-diltiazem (P-D) were studied in 19 patients with chronic exertional angina pectoris. A placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, crossover study design was used in which patients took each treatment for a 4-week period. The 3 combinations equally reduced the incidence of angina attacks and decreased ST-segment depression. Left ventricular hypokinesia during exercise was lessened and end-systolic volume during exercise decreased with all combinations. Because of a corresponding reduction of normokinetic segmental function, global ejection fraction during exercise remained unchanged. Heart size increased (p less than 0.05) and the PR interval lengthened (p less than 0.001) with P-V and P-D compared to P-N. The largest number of adverse clinical reactions occurred with P-V, whereas the fewest occurred with P-D. Almost all patients preferred combined therapy over propranolol and many favored 1 combination over the others. In summary, when therapy with combined beta- and calcium channel-blocking drugs is planned, P-D should be considered the combination of first choice because of its low incidence of adverse clinical effects. In the presence of possible or definite abnormalities of atrioventricular nodal conduction or decreased left ventricular function, P-N should be considered. Although P-V is associated with frequent adverse reactions, a trial may…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 19 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free