Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Bracchetti

Publications and source records attributed to D Bracchetti.

123 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Combined digoxin-molsidomine therapy in congestive heart failure following acute myocardial infarction.

The acute hemodynamic effects of combining administration of digoxin (DIG)(0.01 mg/kg intravenously) with molsidomine (MLS)(4 mg sublingually) were compared with those of DIG and MLS considered alone in 12 patients with congestive heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. The patients were classified into two subgroups, A (cardiac index [CI] less than or equal to 2.2 L/min/m2 and B (CI greater than 2.2 L/min/m2), to verify differences between the responses to the three drug regimens. MLS significantly reduced systolic blood pressure from 121.2 +/- 12.3 (mean +/- SD) to 111.7 +/- 10.9 mm Hg (p less than 0.01) after 60 min, mean right atrial pressure (RAP) from 6.2 +/- 3.6 to 2.4 +/- 2.1 mm Hg (p less than 0.0001), mean pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP) from 20.6 +/- 2.1 to 12.2 +/- 2.8 mm Hg (p less than 0.0001), and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). Left ventricular stroke work index (LVSWI) significantly increased after 60 min. DIG induced a significant reduction in heart rate, RAP, PAP, and LVFP from 20.1 +/- 2 to 14.3 +/- 2.7 mm Hg (p less than 0.0001) after 90 min. Stroke volume index (SVI) increased from 24.7 +/- 4.2 to 27.7 +/- 3.1 ml/beat/m2 (p less than 0.001) and LVSWI from 25.9 +/- 7.2 to 31.9 +/- 5.4 g X m/m2 (p less than 0.0001). The combination of DIG and MLS produced a reduction in RAP, PAP, and LVFP greater than that achieved with either agent alone, with a further shift of the ventricular function curve to the left, thereby leading to an improvement in cardiac performance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Calcium antagonists].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Angina Pectoris↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Use of verapamil vs. beta blockers in patients with myocardial infarct. Retrospective evaluation of the yearly case load of a coronary care unit].

BACKGROUND, MATERIALS AND METHODS: To compare the relative use of verapamil and beta-blockers, which have shown comparable efficacy in reducing mortality and reinfarction rates in selected patients with myocardial infarction (MI), we retrospectively evaluated the ongoing treatment at the time of the pre-discharge evaluation in 221 consecutive patients (167 males and 54 females; mean age: 62.3 +/- 10.8 years) discharged alive in 1994 from our Hospital with the diagnosis of Q-wave MI. RESULTS: The examination of the computerized files of our central database, showed that verapamil was administered (as a monotherapy or in association) to 4% of the patients, compared to 34% of beta-blockers. The choice between the two drugs appeared not to be influenced by age (62 +/- 11 vs 57 +/- 8 years), anterior (70% vs 57%) or inferior (30% vs 40%) MI location or echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction (50.2 +/- 10% vs 52.3 +/- 11%), which were comparable in both groups. On the other hand, beta-blockers were used significantly more often (52% vs 10%; p < 0.05) in the presence of hypertension, while verapamil was preferred (although statistical significance was not reached) in patients with contraindications to beta-blockers, such as chronic obstructive lung disease or peripheral artery disease (20% vs 9% and 10% vs 4%; p = ns, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study gives, for the first time, an estimate of the real use of verapamil in patients with MI, confirming, in keeping with the indications in the literature, that its administration is limited and essentially reserved to patients with contraindications to beta-blockers. A wider use of verapamil (and even more of beta-blockers) would be however hoped for, due to the relevant number of patients (62% of our population) treated with drugs, such as diltiazem, dihydropyridines or nitrates, for which a conclusive demonstration of efficacy on major clinical end-points are lacking.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗