Comparative hemodynamic effects of chewable isosorbide dinitrate and nitroglycerin in patients with congestive heart failure.
Why the study?
Does chewable isosorbide dinitrate improve hemodynamics compared to sublingual nitroglycerin and placebo in patients with congestive heart failure?
Population
8 patients with congestive heart failure and high left ventricular filling pressure
Comparison
Chewable isosorbide dinitrate 10 mg vs Sublingual nitroglycerin 0.6 mg and placebo
Design
RCT, random fashion
Follow-up
3 hours after each drug
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Supports chewable isosorbide dinitrate for sustained hemodynamic effects in acute HF; extends nitrate formulation comparisons in heart failure.
Structured PICO
Does chewable isosorbide dinitrate improve hemodynamics compared to sublingual nitroglycerin and placebo in patients with congestive heart failure?
P
Population
8 patients with congestive heart failure and high left ventricular filling pressure (pulmonary wedge pressure > 14 mm Hg)
I
Intervention
Chewable isosorbide dinitrate 10 mg
C
Comparator
Sublingual nitroglycerin 0.6 mg and placebo (two chewable tablets)
O
Outcome
Changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and left ventricular filling pressure over 3 hourssurrogate
Chewable isosorbide dinitrate provides rapid and sustained reduction in left ventricular filling pressure in heart failure patients, outlasting sublingual nitroglycerin.
Cite This Study
Mikulic et al. (1975) studied this question.