Why the study?
Does intravenous or inhaled isosorbide dinitrate improve haemodynamics and plasma nitrate levels compared to sublingual glyceryl trinitrate in patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation for chest pain?
Does intravenous or inhaled isosorbide dinitrate improve haemodynamics and plasma nitrate levels compared to sublingual glyceryl trinitrate in patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation for chest pain?
Inhaled isosorbide dinitrate may provide more rapid and sustained relief from angina than sublingual glyceryl trinitrate based on pharmacokinetic and haemodynamic profiles.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May warrant further study of inhaled ISDN for sustained effects in angina; leaves open clinical outcome benefits versus GTN.
We measured plasma nitrate levels and haemodynamics following sublingual glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) (0.5 mg), or isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) administered intravenously (0.5 mg) or by inhalation (1.25 mg) in 23 patients undergoing cardiac catheterisation for investigation of chest pain. Peak levels were detected at 90 s and 5 min following intravenous and inhaled ISDN respectively and at 3 min following sublingual GTN. Intravenous and inhaled ISDN produced similar plasma levels at 30 s and both were significantly greater than following sublingual GTN. Plasma levels were maintained for longer following inhaled ISDN than intravenous ISDN or sublingual GTN. Haemodynamic responses were qualitatively similar following each treatment; reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance and pressure and left ventricular end diastolic pressure occurred in each group. Heart rate, cardiac output and LV dP/dt.P-1 remained unchanged. Maximal haemodynamic responses were greater following ISDN than GTN, with little difference between the two preparations of ISDN. Haemodynamic responses were more sustained following inhaled ISDN than following sublingual GTN or intravenous ISDN, the latter two being similar in this respect. These findings suggest that inhaled ISDN may provide more rapid and sustained relief from angina than sublingual GTN.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Culling et al. (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: