Why the study?
Does calcium antagonist use improve outcomes in patients with congestive heart failure?
Does calcium antagonist use improve outcomes in patients with congestive heart failure?
Calcium antagonists should generally be avoided in congestive heart failure due to their negative inotropic effects and potential to deteriorate myocardial function, unless specifically indicated.
May warrant caution with calcium antagonists in heart failure; leaves open agent-specific effects in selected patients.
Calcium antagonists continue to be used to treat congestive heart failure (CHF), despite clinical evidence that they may exacerbate the disease. The systemic vasodilatory actions of these drugs make them potentially attractive for use as afterload reducing agents in patients with CHF. Newer calcium antagonists of the 1,4-dihydropyridine class, with claims of little or no negative inotropic properties and minimal effects on the sympathetic nervous system, seem a promising treatment of this disease. All calcium antagonists, however, consistent with their ability to block transmembrane calcium transport in cardiac muscle cells, are intrinsically negative inotropes. Moreover, clinical trial data are inconclusive about the ability of these newer calcium antagonists to activate the sympathetic nervous system. The relatively small numbers of patients with CHF, the differing degrees of CHF in different patient groups, and the variation in route of administration, dosage, and schedule of hemodynamic measurements make analyses of published data difficult. Although some patients with CHF respond positively to treatment with calcium antagonists, there is great individual variability of response, and the majority of patients show deterioration of myocardial function when taking calcium antagonists. Until conclusive clinical evidence of the safety and effectiveness of calcium antagonists in the treatment CHF is available, they should not be used to treat this disease unless individual patient characteristics clearly indicate a positive benefit/risk ratio.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert W. Piepho (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: