Why the study?
Does chronic treatment with transdermal nitroglycerin alter its acute hemodynamic effects in patients with angina?
Does chronic treatment with transdermal nitroglycerin alter its acute hemodynamic effects in patients with angina?
Prolonged treatment with transdermal nitroglycerin leads to tolerance of its venodilator effects while preserving its arteriodilator effects.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Chronic use may preserve arterial but blunt venous effects; leaves open clinical relevance in angina.
Two groups of patients with angina were studied: Group A, 9 patients not treated previously with nitroderivatives; Group B, 8 patients, treated with transdermally administered nitroderivatives for at least 4 weeks. Hemodynamic parameters did not differ significantly in these groups under baseline conditions; only systolic blood pressure was higher in Group B (165 +/- 16 mmHg) than in Group A (144 +/- 15 mmHg). Hemodynamic modifications produced by administering nitroglycerin transdermally in these patient groups were evaluated 100 min after the transdermal application. In Group A significant reduction of systolic (144 +/- 15 to 126 +/- 18 mmHg, p less than 0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (83.36 +/- 70.1 +/- 13 mmHg, p less than 0.05), mean right atrial pressure (4.8 +/- 2.1 to 3 +/- 1.7 mmHg, p less than 0.005), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (18.6 +/- 2.6 to 16.7 +/- 2.8 mmHg, p less than 0.01), and significant increase of heart rate (72 +/- 10 to 83.5 +/- 12.4 beats/min, p less than 0.005) were noted. In Group B we noted only a significant reduction in systolic (170 +/- 25 to 150.5 +/- 16 mmHg, p less than 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (88.7 +/- 15.5 to 77.5 +/- 9.2 mmHg, p less than 0.05) without other modifications. We conclude that prolonged treatment with adequate doses of transdermal nitroglycerin causes the hemodynamic effects of the medication to dissipate from the venous tone and significant arteriodilative effect to persist.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mattioli et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: