Why the study?
Does intravenous isosorbide mononitrate improve clinical efficacy and electrocardiogram results compared to glyceryl trinitrate in patients with angina pectoris in coronary heart disease?
Does intravenous isosorbide mononitrate improve clinical efficacy and electrocardiogram results compared to glyceryl trinitrate in patients with angina pectoris in coronary heart disease?
Intravenous isosorbide mononitrate may offer superior clinical and electrocardiographic improvement with fewer adverse reactions compared to glyceryl trinitrate for the treatment of angina pectoris.
May support isosorbide mononitrate over glyceryl trinitrate in angina; hypothesis-generating, needs RCTs before practice change.
The aim of this study was to observe and investigate the clinical efficacy of an intravenous drip of isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) for the treatment of angina pectoris in coronary heart disease. A total of 102 patients with angina pectoris in coronary heart disease were divided into two groups. For the treatment group (n=51), 20 mg ISMN was added to 250 ml 0.9% normal saline and administered by intravenous drip for 14 consecutive days, twice daily. For the control group (n=51), 10 mg glyceryl trinitrate was added to 250 ml 0.9% normal saline and administered by intravenous drip for 14 consecutive days, twice daily. The clinical efficacy and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. The disease symptoms of the two groups were improved. Compared with the control group, the clinical efficacy and electrocardiogram examination results of the treatment group were significantly improved (P<0.05). The intravenous formulation of ISMN is an effective treatment for angina pectoris in coronary heart disease and it has the advantages of fewer adverse reactions and higher safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: