Yonsei medical journal · 2017
Impact of Diltiazem Alone versus Diltiazem with Nitrate on Five-Year Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Significant Coronary Artery Spasm.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Park Taeshik, Park Ji Young, Rha Seung Woon, Seo Hong Seog, Choi Byoung Geol, Choi Se Yeon, Byun Jae Kyeong, Park Sang Ho, Park Eun Jin, Choi Jah Yeon, Park Sung Hun, Lee Jae Joong, Lee Sunki, Na Jin Oh, Choi Cheol Ung, Lim Hong Euy, Kim Jin Won, Kim Eung Ju, Park Chang Gyu, Oh Dong Joo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Calcium channel blockers diltiazem and nitrate have been used as selective coronary vasodilators for patients with significant coronary artery spasm (CAS). However, no study has compared the efficacy of diltiazem alone versus diltiazem with nitrate for long-term clinical outcomes in patients with CAS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2741 consecutive patients without significant coronary artery disease with positive CAS by acetylcholine (Ach) provocation test between November 2004 and May 2014 were enrolled. Significant CAS was defined as a narrowing of >70% by incremental intracoronary injection of 20, 50, and 100 μg of Ach into the left coronary artery. Patients were assigned to either the diltiazem group (n=842) or the dual group (diltiazem with nitrate, n=1899) at physician discretion. To adjust for potential confounders, a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed using the logistic regression model. After PSM analysis, two well-balanced groups (811 pairs, n=1622, C-statistic=0.708) were generated.
RESULTS: At 5 years, there were similar incidences in primary endpoints, including mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and recurrent angina requiring repeat coronary angiography between the two groups. Diltiazem alone was not an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular events or recurrent angina requiring repeat coronary angiography.
CONCLUSION: Despite the expected improvement of endothelial function and the relief of CAS, the combination of diltiazem and nitrate treatment was not superior to diltiazem alone in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events up to 5 years in patients with significant CAS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2741 consecutive patients without significant coronary artery disease with positive CAS by acetylcholine (Ach) provocation test between November 2004 and May 2014 were enrolled. Significant CAS was defined as a narrowing of >70% by incremental intracoronary injection of 20, 50, and 100 μg of Ach into the left coronary artery. Patients were assigned to either the diltiazem group (n=842) or the dual group (diltiazem with nitrate, n=1899) at physician discretion. To adjust for potential confounders, a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed using the logistic regression model. After PSM analysis, two well-balanced groups (811 pairs, n=1622, C-statistic=0.708) were generated.
RESULTS: At 5 years, there were similar incidences in primary endpoints, including mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and recurrent angina requiring repeat coronary angiography between the two groups. Diltiazem alone was not an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular events or recurrent angina requiring repeat coronary angiography.
CONCLUSION: Despite the expected improvement of endothelial function and the relief of CAS, the combination of diltiazem and nitrate treatment was not superior to diltiazem alone in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events up to 5 years in patients with significant CAS.