Key result
Intracoronary magnesium and diltiazem diminished endothelin 1 (32.9 vs. 34.5%) and fibronectin (21.7 vs. 23.2%) and increased protein C (31.9 vs. 29.3%) compared to controls in swine.
Why the study?
Does intracoronary magnesium or diltiazem improve hemostatic factors during acute myocardial infarction and reperfusion in a swine model?
Does intracoronary magnesium or diltiazem improve hemostatic factors during acute myocardial infarction and reperfusion in a swine model?
Intracoronary magnesium and diltiazem similarly improve hemostatic profiles during acute myocardial infarction and reperfusion in a swine model.
These swine-model hemostatic shifts are hypothesis-generating; human trials are required before any clinical consideration.
The use of calcium antagonists and magnesium (Mg) in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction is controversial. We compared changes in hemostasis during acute myocardial infarction after either low-dose intracoronary Mg or diltiazem infusion in 20 Yorkshire swine undergoing thoracotomy and coronary artery occlusion for 50 min, followed by 3 h of reperfusion. The first group received MgSO4 (250 mg), delivered at the onset of reperfusion, the second group received diltiazem (2.5 mg) at the beginning of reperfusion. Six controls received saline. Plasma antithrombin III, protein C, total protein S, fibronectin, endothelin 1, and metabolites of thromboxane and prostacyclin were measured at baseline, twice during occlusion, and three times during reperfusion. Compared to controls, Mg and diltiazem infusion diminished endothelin 1 (32.9 vs. 34.5%) and fibronectin. (21.7 vs. 23.2%), but increased protein C (31.9 vs. 29.3%). Intracoronary Mg, like diltiazem, improved hemostasis in swine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Serebruany et al. (2008) studied Acute myocardial infarction (n=20). Intracoronary Magnesium or Diltiazem vs. Saline was evaluated on Changes in hemostasis (endothelin 1, fibronectin, protein C). Intracoronary magnesium and diltiazem diminished endothelin 1 (32.9 vs. 34.5%) and fibronectin (21.7 vs. 23.2%) and increased protein C (31.9 vs. 29.3%) compared to controls in swine.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: