Comparison of short-term efficacy of diltiazem and propranolol in unstable angina at rest--a randomized trial in 70 patients

Trends in the post-hospitalization medical treatment of unstable angina pectoris: 1990 to 1995

This study provides data on post-hospitalization medication treatment trends for unstable angina between 1990 and 1995. We conducted an observational cohort study at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS). Computerized records of hospital discharges and cardiac catheterizations were used to identify unstable angina diagnoses among veterans between 1990 and 1995. Discharge medications issued within 90 days after discharge were ascertained from computerized outpatient pharmacy records. Of the 1,100 veterans discharged with unstable angina, 885 (80%) filled a prescription through the VAPSHCS within 90 days after discharge. Neither use of aspirin nor use of beta blockers increased between 1990 and 1995: overall use averaged 76% for aspirin (78% of those without potential contraindications) and 32% for beta blockers (36% of those without potential contraindications). Use of non-dihydropyridine calcium antagonists--primarily diltiazem--decreased from 57% to 40% (p <0.01), whereas use of dihydropyridine calcium antagonists increased from 12% to 26% (p <0.01). Thus, pharmacy records indicated that aspirin use was high although it was lower than expected, possibly due to ready availability outside the VAPSHCS pharmacy. The low frequency of beta-blocker use and the increasing reliance on dihydropyridine calcium antagonists through 1995 to treat unstable angina may be an opportunity to improve veteran care according to Agency for Health Care Policy Research recommendations.

Management of high-risk subsets in unstable angina

This article focuses on the optimal treatment of postinfarction, refractory, or recurrent angina based on the results of recent clinical trials. Many of our recommendations hold true for the general management of unstable angina, but special considerations for the high-risk subsets are emphasized. Specifically, we discuss acute medical management and suggest that an early aggressive strategy that leads to early coronary angiography with the goal of revascularization when feasible best serves this subset. A special emphasis on the emerging role of glycoprotein IIb-IIIa antagonists is made because the important role of platelets in coronary thrombosis has dominated recent views on the pathophysiology of unstable angina.

Health outcomes associated with beta-blocker and diltiazem treatment of unstable angina

OBJECTIVE

We compared long-term health outcomes associated with beta-adrenergic blocking agents and diltiazem treatment for unstable angina.

BACKGROUND

No long-term data have been published comparing these two antianginal treatments in this setting.

METHODS

Eligible veterans were discharged from the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS), Seattle Division, between October 1989 and September 1995 with an unstable angina diagnosis and were prescribed monotherapy beta-blocker or diltiazem treatment at discharge. Medication data were collected from medical records and computerized VAPSHCS outpatient pharmacy files. Follow-up death and coronary artery disease rehospitalization data were collected through 1996. Proportional hazards regression compared survival among diltiazem and beta-blocker users, controlling for patient characteristics with propensity scores.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-seven veterans (24% on beta-blockers, 76% on diltiazem) were included in this study. There were 54 (22%) deaths during an average follow-up of 51 months. After propensity score adjustment, there was no difference in risk of death comparing diltiazem to beta-blocker treatment (hazards ratios [HR] 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 2.4). Among Washington residents (n=207), there were 146 (71%) coronary artery disease rehospitalizations or deaths during follow-up. After adjustment, there was a nonsignificant increase in risk of rehospitalization or death associated with diltiazem use (HR 1.4; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.4). For both analyses, similar risks were found among veterans without relative contraindications to beta-blockers.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no survival benefit of diltiazem over beta-blocker treatment for unstable angina in this cohort of veterans.

Re-examining the clinical safety and roles of calcium antagonists in cardiovascular medicine

Despite recent analyses questioning the safety of calcium antagonists, evidence and clinical practice strongly support a major role for these drugs in the management of many cardiovascular diseases such as arrhythmia, vascular spasm, hypertension, diastolic dysfunction, stable angina, and myocardial infarction. These agents are a heterogeneous class of drugs with each formulation possessing unique properties and clinical applications. This article presents a review of the available literature and discusses the recommended use of various calcium antagonists in the treatment of diseases of the heart and vascular system.

Calcium channel antagonists in the management of anginal syndromes: changing concepts in relation to the role of coronary vasospasm

Despite the increasing evidence that alterations in coronary vascular tone can and do occur in patients with anginal syndromes, only in a minority of such patients with Prinzmetal's angina is there decisive evidence that the coronary vasodilation induced by calcium channel antagonists (CCAs) plays a specific therapeutic role. CCAs may also give therapeutic benefit in a number of conditions in which coronary vasoconstriction may contribute to ischemia, such as hyperventilation, cold-induced angina, or silent ischemia not caused by an increase in heart rate. Thus, the decision of whether or not to use CCAs in angina syndromes will often have to be made on grounds other than what appears to be a minor role of vasospasm in the overall spectrum of angina. There are preliminary indications that the long-term prognosis may be different among different categories of CCAs.

Randomised, double-blind trial of intravenous diltiazem versus glyceryl trinitrate for unstable angina pectoris

The effect of dihydropyridines in patients with unstable angina is discouraging. To find out the effect of the non-dihydropyridine-like calcium-channel blocker diltiazem, a randomised, double-blind trial was conducted comparing diltiazem with glyceryl trinitrate, both given intravenously, in 129 patients with unstable angina. The endpoints were refractory angina or myocardial infarction, individually and as a composite endpoint. Refractory angina alone or together with myocardial infarction occurred significantly less commonly in the diltiazem group. While patients were on the trial drugs the numbers with refractory angina were 6 (10%) in the diltiazem group versus 17 (28%) in the glyceryl trinitrate group (relative risk 0.36, p = 0.02), and the numbers with refractory angina and myocardial infarction were 9 (15%) versus 23 (38%) (relative risk 0.40, p = 0.007). Over 48 h the number were: refractory angina 8 (13%) versus 18 (30%), relative risk 0.45, p = 0.03, and refractory angina and myocardial infarction 12 (20.0%) versus 25 (41%), relative risk 0.49, p = 0.02. Patients in the diltiazem group had better (p < 0.05) event-free survival while taking the drugs. Heart-rate pressure product was reduced significantly only by diltiazem (p < 0.05). The incidence of bradyarrhythmias did not differ significantly. Atrioventricular conduction disturbances occurred in 5 (8%) patients in the diltiazem group but were not seen in the glyceryl trinitrate group (p = 0.03). These disturbances could be reversed by decreasing the dose of the drug or withdrawing it. No temporary pacemakers were required. Headache requiring an analgesic or dose adjustment occurred significantly less in the diltiazem group: 3 (5%) versus 15 (25%), relative risk 0.20 (p < 0.004). These results indicate that intravenous diltiazem, compared with intravenous glyceryl trinitrate, significantly reduces ischaemic events and can be used safely in patients with unstable angina.

Treatment of silent ischemia in unstable angina: a randomized comparison of sustained-release verapamil versus metoprolol

Silent ischemia is a frequent finding in patients with unstable angina and portends a poor prognosis. We compared the efficacy of sustained-release (SR) verapamil and metoprolol in reducing silent ischemia in patients with unstable angina and assessed whether detection of silent ischemia was related to unfavorable outcomes in the contemporary setting of concurrent therapy with heparin and aspirin. Holter monitoring (leads a VF, V2, V5) for the first 72 h was used to assess the frequency and duration of ST-shift episodes. There were 37 patients in the verapamil-SR group and 40 patients in the metoprolol group, with both groups having similar baseline characteristics. There were more episodes of angina in the verampamil-SR group (29 vs. 12, p = 0.05). There was no difference between the two groups in the frequency (51 vs. 49 episodes, p = 0.9) or duration (23 +/- 48 vs. 18 +/- 50 min, p = 0.6) of ST-shift episodes. There were 20 unfavorable in-hospital outcomes distributed equally between the two groups (p = 0.9). Patients with unfavorable outcomes had ST shift more often (50 vs. 28%, p = 0.07) and for a longer duration (40 +/- 69 vs. 13 +/- 38 min, p = 0.03). Patients with ST shift > or = 60 min had a 60% probability of unfavorable outcome compared with 33% for ST shift of 1-59 min duration and 20% for no ST shift (p = 0.04). We conclude that metoprolol appears to reduce symptoms better than verapamil-SR, but no difference in silent ischemia or unfavorable outcomes was seen. Silent ischemia remains a common occurrence in these patients despite heparin and aspirin therapy and its detection continues to have prognostic value.

Use of intravenous diltiazem in patients with acute coronary artery disease

The use of calcium antagonists for the treatment of patients with unstable angina and acute myocardial infarction has been a promising area of both basic and clinical research. Despite consistently beneficial effects experimentally, the clinical extrapolation of these results has been less than ideal, especially in patients with evolving myocardial infarction. Calcium antagonists have in some instances failed to manifest benefit and at times have been shown to have negative effects. One reason for this could be the use of oral or sublingual preparations, which result in variable absorption, variable volumes of distribution, and variable clearance. For this reason, an intravenous preparation of one of the calcium antagonists, diltiazem, may be more beneficial. Such a preparation has been developed and its safety confirmed in patients without cardiovascular disease and in patients with acute infarction. Substantial benefit has been documented in patients with stable angina and during noncardiac surgery. Preliminary data in patients with unstable angina suggest that the drug is effective, although studies comparing intravenous diltiazem with other agents or with the oral preparation of diltiazem have not yet been reported. Experimental data in animals with acute infarction have demonstrated that administration of intravenous diltiazem after occlusion, but prior to reperfusion, elicits a marked increase in the degree of myocardial salvage induced by thrombolysis. This appears to be due to the inhibition of lipid peroxidation rather than alterations in coronary perfusion. Thus, it appears that the intravenous preparation may permit the more effective use of diltiazem in patients with acute coronary artery disease.

Progress in cardioprotection: the role of calcium antagonists

Calcium antagonists are now widely used for the treatment of clinical hypertension and angina pectoris. They are efficacious for the treatment of vasospastic, fixed atherosclerotic and mixed angina; they reduce the incidence of silent ischemia; and they have been shown to reduce postmyocardial infarct angina. Experimental data suggest that they may have certain cardioprotective properties in cases of acute myocardial ischemia and infarction, stunned myocardium, diastolic dysfunction, left ventricular hypertrophy and atherosclerosis. Moreover, they have been shown to improve exercise performance, as well as the diastolic abnormalities in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In animals, they may delay or reduce the extent of myocardial necrosis after coronary occlusion or coronary occlusion followed by reperfusion, and in low doses that do not alter the hemodynamic profile, they have been shown to enhance the return of ventricular function in animals with stunned myocardium. However, the early first-generation calcium antagonists (nifedipine, verapamil, diltiazem) have not been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size or to enhance survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction. There now are clinical studies that suggest that, unlike beta blockers or nitrates, nifedipine may slow the development of atherosclerotic progression in humans over a 2-year period, and it seems likely that in the 1990s there will be further expansion of the use of calcium antagonists for not only angina and hypertension but also for aspects of cardioprotection. That calcium antagonists may delay, prevent or possibly regress atherosclerotic lesions is an exciting possibility.

Calcium channel blockers in acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina: an overview

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of calcium channel blockers on development of infarcts, reinfarction, and mortality.

DESIGN

A systematic overview of all randomised trials of calcium channel blockers in myocardial infarction and unstable angina.

PATIENTS

19,000 Patients in 28 randomised trials.

RESULTS

In the trials of myocardial infarction 873 deaths occurred among 8870 patients randomised to active treatment compared with 825 deaths among 8889 control patients (odds ratio of 1.06, 95% confidence interval of 0.96 to 1.18). There was no evidence of a beneficial effect on development and size of infarcts or rate of reinfarction. The results were similar in short term trials in which treatment was confined to the acute phase and those in which treatment was started some weeks later and continued for a year or two. There was no evidence of heterogeneity among different calcium channel blockers in their effects on any end point. The results were similar in the unstable angina trials (110 out of 561 patients treated with calcium channel blocker compared with 104 out of 548 controls developed a myocardial infarction; 14 out of 591 treated compared with nine out of 578 controls died).

CONCLUSIONS

Calcium channel blockers do not reduce the risk of initial or recurrent infarction or death when given routinely to patients with acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina.

Calcium channel antagonists. Part II: Use and comparative properties of the three prototypical calcium antagonists in ischemic heart disease, including recommendations based on an analysis of 41 trials

An analysis of 41 trials of angina of all varieties confirms that calcium antagonists are an important advance and are now established therapy for these syndromes. In effort angina, verapamil in a dose of 360-480 mg daily is better than propranolol in standard doses. Although nifedipine is highly effective against vasospastic angina, its use in threatened myocardial infarction or severe unstable angina is not supported by recent studies, unless combined with a beta-blocker. Diltiazem has recently been tested with apparent benefit in non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Otherwise, these calcium antagonist agents all seem to have approximate equipotency in clinical ischemic syndromes including effort and vasospastic angina. Subjective side effects seem most troublesome in the case of nifedipine. All three calcium antagonists, especially nifedipine, have been successfully combined with beta-blocker therapy, yet occasional additive negative inotropic or chronotropic or dromotropic interactions may occur when verapamil or diltiazem is added to beta-blockade, and occasionally the direct negative inotropic potential of nifedipine may become evident. The choice between the calcium antagonists is determined not only by the clinical picture but also by the anticipated side effects in a given patient and by the overall cardiovascular status. In patients with supraventricular tachycardias or sinus tachycardia, verapamil or diltiazem is preferred, whereas in patients with a resting bradycardia or borderline heart failure nifedipine is likely to be chosen.

Calcium antagonists for Prinzmetal's variant angina, unstable angina and silent myocardial ischemia: therapeutic tool and probe for identification of pathophysiologic mechanisms

The calcium antagonists provide a unique tool to reduce myocardial oxygen demand and prevent increases in coronary vasomotor tone. For patients with Prinzmetal's variant angina, diltiazem, nifedipine and verapamil are extremely effective in preventing episodes of coronary vasospasm and symptoms of ischemia. Unstable angina pectoris is a more complex pathophysiologic syndrome with episodes of ischemia due to increases in coronary vasomotor tone, intermittent platelet aggregation or alterations in the underlying atherosclerotic plaque. Each of the calcium antagonists is effective as monotherapy in decreasing the frequency of angina at rest. Nifedipine is the only calcium antagonist that has been studied in a combination regimen with beta blockers and nitrates for patients with unstable angina, and control of angina is better with the combination regimen than with either form of therapy alone. Although symptoms of myocardial ischemia in unstable angina are reduced by calcium antagonists, these agents do not seem to decrease the incidence of adverse outcomes. Antiplatelet therapy appears to improve morbidity and mortality in patients with unstable angina, suggesting that thrombus formation may play a central role in that disorder. Episodes of silent or asymptomatic myocardial ischemia, identified by ST-segment monitoring, occur in a variety of disorders of coronary disease. Among patients with Prinzmetal's variant angina and unstable angina, episodes of silent ischemia appear to be as frequent as episodes of angina and the calcium antagonists are effective in decreasing episodes of ischemia regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms. Persisting episodes of silent ischemia among patients with unstable angina despite maximal medical therapy identify patients at high risk for an early unfavorable outcome. Among patients with stable exertional angina, episodes of silent ischemia may be up to 5 times as frequent as episodes of angina, and may be due to increases in coronary vasomotor tone, transient platelet aggregation or increases in myocardial oxygen demand. Preliminary experience suggests that calcium antagonists and beta blockers are effective in decreasing episodes of silent ischemia in patients with stable exertional angina and that a combination regimen may be more effective than either form of therapy alone.

A randomized study comparing propranolol and diltiazem in the treatment of unstable angina

One hundred consecutive patients hospitalized in the coronary care unit for unstable angina, excluding patients with Prinzmetal's variant angina, were randomized within 24 hours of admission to treatment with diltiazem (50 patients) or propranolol (50 patients). Also excluded were patients with previous coronary artery bypass surgery and those receiving a beta-receptor blocking agent at the time of hospital admission. Left ventricular function and the extent of coronary artery disease were similar in the two groups. During the hospital stay, the number of chest pain episodes decreased from a mean (+/- SD) of 0.75 +/- 0.1 per patient per day to 0.26 +/- 0.07 (p less than 0.05) with diltiazem and 0.29 +/- 0.1 (p less than 0.05) with propranolol therapy. The circadian distribution of chest pain episodes was affected similarly. After 1 month, 14 of the patients treated with diltiazem were symptom-free compared with 13 treated with propranolol. At a mean follow-up time of 5.1 months (range 1 to 15), death had occurred in two patients in each group and myocardial infarction in five diltiazem- and four propranolol-treated patients (difference not significant). Coronary artery bypass surgery had been performed in 21 diltiazem- and 19 propranolol-treated patients (difference not significant). Only 15 patients were symptom-free, 9 treated with diltiazem and 6 with propranolol. This similar result observed with the two forms of treatment suggests that coronary artery spasm may not be the main factor involved in unstable angina when Prinzmetal's variant angina is excluded. It also suggests that diltiazem can be used as an alternative to the usual treatment with beta-receptor blocking drugs.