1996
DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(96)00109-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Calcium antagonists and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease: A Cohort study of 11,575 patients

Abstract: The current analysis does not support the claim that calcium antagonist therapy in patients with chronic coronary artery disease, whether myocardial infarction survivors or others harbors an increased risk of mortality.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
2

Year Published

1997
1997
2001
2001

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
28
2
Order By: Relevance
“…karger.ch http:// BioMedNet.com/karger ever, provide any evidence for any adverse effects on mor tality or morbidity for any other agent, with one excep tion: nimodipine (approved only for subarchnoid hemor rhage) increased mortality when given to patients un dergoing major cardiovascular surgery [ 11 ]. In contrast to the allegations of Furberg et al [2], we found no increased risk for mortality between users and nonusers of calcium channel blockers (short-acting nifedipine, diltiazem and verapamil) in a recent cohort study of 1 1,575 patients with chronic coronary artery disease [ 12] after an average follow-up of more than 3 years. With so many calcium channel blockers available today, it is relevant to ask not whether calcium channel blockers can be used in the management of coronary artery disease and hypertension, but rather which calcium channel block ers are preferable.…”
contrasting
confidence: 52%
“…karger.ch http:// BioMedNet.com/karger ever, provide any evidence for any adverse effects on mor tality or morbidity for any other agent, with one excep tion: nimodipine (approved only for subarchnoid hemor rhage) increased mortality when given to patients un dergoing major cardiovascular surgery [ 11 ]. In contrast to the allegations of Furberg et al [2], we found no increased risk for mortality between users and nonusers of calcium channel blockers (short-acting nifedipine, diltiazem and verapamil) in a recent cohort study of 1 1,575 patients with chronic coronary artery disease [ 12] after an average follow-up of more than 3 years. With so many calcium channel blockers available today, it is relevant to ask not whether calcium channel blockers can be used in the management of coronary artery disease and hypertension, but rather which calcium channel block ers are preferable.…”
contrasting
confidence: 52%
“…small size, lack of details essential to the interpretation of the data, multiple comparisons of the same data base) that further detract from the conclu sions. Finally, the results of these studies have not been confirmed by other observational or case-control studies sometimes on much larger populations [30][31][32], They have also not been confirmed by recent prospective stud ies [33][34][35], One of them, the Shanghai Trial of Nifedi pine in the Elderly concerns long-term administration of nifedipine in Chinese elderly hypertensive subjects [35]. As shown in figure 2, in this single-blind multicenter study the nifedipine-treated group showed a significantly greater reduction in blood pressure than the placebotreated group.…”
Section: The Calcium a Ntagonist Controversymentioning
confidence: 56%
“…The results of the animal genotoxicity animal studies are consistent with large and powerful epidemiologic studies that have failed to demonstrate a consistent increase in overall risk for cancer among hypertensive patients using CCBs. [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]87 A review of the epidemiologic studies related to CCB use is reported in Table 4. It is also important to note that other widely used antihypertensive medications, including diuretics and ␤-blockers, have been previously linked to an increased risk for malignancy.…”
Section: Animal Genotoxicity Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%