Why the study?
Do i.v. doxazosin or i.v. enalaprilat provide haemodynamic advantages over i.v. hydralazine/ISDN in patients with acute LV failure due to recent myocardial infarction?
Do i.v. doxazosin or i.v. enalaprilat provide haemodynamic advantages over i.v. hydralazine/ISDN in patients with acute LV failure due to recent myocardial infarction?
Intravenous doxazosin and enalaprilat provide balanced vasodilatation without inducing resting tachycardia, offering potential haemodynamic advantages over hydralazine/ISDN in acute heart failure post-MI.
May offer tachycardia-sparing vasodilation in post-MI LV failure; leaves open outcome benefits versus hydralazine/ISDN.
Haemodynamic comparison of three vasodilation regimens [intravenous (i.v.) hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) combined, i.v. doxazosin, and i.v. enalaprilat] was undertaken in 36 patients with acute left ventricular (LV) failure due to recent myocardial infarction. Each regimen achieved similar reductions in pulmonary artery occluded pressure (PAOP, preload) and systemic arterial pressures (afterload), with increased cardiac and stroke volume (SV) indexes (p less than 0.01). Only the hydralazine and isosorbide combination induced resting tachycardia. Balanced vasodilatation after selective alpha-adrenoceptor blockade (doxazosin) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition (enalaprilat) without increase in heart rate (HR) suggests that these therapies may have definite haemodynamic advantages over the hydralazine/ISDN combination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Verma et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: