Why the study?
What is the role of adjunctive pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction?
What is the role of adjunctive pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction?
This review summarizes the evidence for adjunctive medical therapies in acute MI, highlighting the mortality benefits of beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors (in LV dysfunction) while noting the limited utility of calcium antagonists, oral nitrates, and prophylactic antiarrhythmics.
Supports selective beta-blocker and ACE-inhibitor use in acute MI; leaves open optimal regimens in the contemporary reperfusion era.
The second part of this review summarizes the role of other classes of pharmacological therapy in treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI). The goals of pharmacological therapy are to alleviate symptoms, to stabilize hemodynamic status, and to prevent arrhythmias. These agents have been utilized primarily because of their ability to limit infarct size. Other beneficial properties may include their effects on neurohormonal activation, hemodynamics, and arrhythmias. In an individual patient, age, associated medical conditions, and hemodynamic status are important considerations in choosing a specific class of drug therapy. The beta-adrenergic blocking agents have modest effects on mortality, and they are useful when used alone and in combination with thrombolytic agents. Calcium antagonists have a limited role in acute MI. Diltiazem reduces the incidence of reinfarction in patients with non-Q MI. Oral nitrate therapy has not been shown to reduce mortality. Data from recent trials suggest that prophylactic administration of antiarrhthymic therapy is also not useful in acute MI. The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors when administered in the acute phase of MI needs to be evaluated further. These agents are safe and well tolerated, and they offer greatest benefit when given in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jafri et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: