Comparison of Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system and Atenolol on antianginal efficacies and exercise hemodynamic responses in stable angina pectoris

doi:10.1016/0002-9149(94)90721-8

The American Journal of Cardiology

Volume 73, Issue 1, 1 January 1994, Pages 23-28

https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(94)90721-8 Get rights and content

Abstract

A gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) of nifedipine has been developed to provide a once daily dosing, and predictable, relatively constant plasma concentrations. This study compared the antianginal efficacy of nifedipine GITS with a once-a-day β-receptor blocker, atenolol. Seventeen patients with documented coronary artery disease and stable stress-induced angina pectoris were studied during a 2-week, single-blind, placebo baseline phase and a 12-week randomized, double-blind, active drug crossover efficacy phase, using the bicycle exercise test and ambulatory electrocardiographic recordings. Patients exercised significantly longer with nifedipine GITS (883 ± 47 seconds) and atenolol (908 ± 44 seconds) than with placebo (794 ± 41 seconds). Nifedipine GITS reduced systolic blood pressure at all stages of exercise compared with placebo but, because heart rate tended to increase more during nifedipine therapy, there was no difference in rate-pressure products between the placebo and nifedipine GITS periods. In contrast, atenolol reduced heart rate, systolic blood pressure and rate-pressure product during exercise compared with placebo. Whereas left ventricular ejection fractions (by radionuclide angiocardiography) increased with exercise, the maximal increase was smaller with atenolol than with placebo and nifedipine. The net increase in left ventricular ejection fraction at the end of exercise was greater with nifedipine than with placebo or atenolol. Ambulatory electrocardiograms showed only a small number of ischemic events. Neither nifedipine GITS nor atenolol reduced the number of ischemic events or total duration of ST-segment deviations significantly. It is concluded that nifedipine GITS is as effective an antianginal agent as atenolol, but the hemodynamic effects of the 2 agents differ. Left ventricular ejection fraction increases more with nifedipine than with atenolol during bicycle excercise.

References (33)

L.G. Sherman et al.
Nifedipine in chronic stable angina: a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial
Am J Cardiol
(1983)
W. Shapiro et al.
Comparison of atenolol and nifedipine in chronic stable angina pectoris
Am J Cardiol
(1989)
M.B. Higginbotham et al.
Comparison of nifedipine alone with propranolol alone for stable angina pectoris including hemodynamics at rest and during exercise
Am J Cardiol
(1986)
D.T. Kawanishi et al.
Response of angina and ischemia to long-term treatment in patients' with chronic stable angina: a doubleblind randomized individualized dosing trial of nifedipine, propranolol'and their combination
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1992)
F. Akhras et al.
A randomised double-blind crossover study of isosorbide mononitrate and nifedipme retard in chronic stable angina
Int J Cordial
(1989)
W.A. Wallace et al.
Comparison of antianginal efficacies and exercise hemodynamic effects of nifedipine and diltiazem in stable angina pectoris
Am J Cordial
(1989)
M. Chung et al.
Clinical phamracokinetics of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system: a controlled-release formulation of nifedipine
Am J Med
(1987)
D.R. Swanson et al.
Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system
Am J Med
(1987)
G.W. Vetrovec
Once-daily therapy for angina pectoris with nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system
Am J Med
(1989)
W.W. Parmley et al.
Attenuation of the circadian patterns of myocardial ischemia with nifedipine GITS in patients with chronic stable angina
J Am Coll Cardiol
(1992)

S. Terris et al.

Direct cardiac and peripheral vascular effects of intracoronary and intravenous nifedipine

Am J Cordial

(1986)

M. Kaltenbach et al.

Effects of nifedipine after intravenous and intracoronary administration

Am J Cardiol

(1979)

J.L. Anderson et al.

Comparative effects of diltiazem, propranolol, and placebo on exercise performance using radionuclide ventriculography in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease: results of a double-blind, randomized, crossover study

Am Heart J

(1984)

R.W. Nesto et al.

Effect of nifedipine on total ischemic activity and circadian distribution of myocardial ischemic episodes in angina pectoris

Am J Cardiol

(1991)

J.A. Hill et al.

Effects of atenolol alone, nifedipine alone and their combination on ambulant myocardial ischemia

Am J Cardiol

(1991)

D. Mulcahy et al.

Circadian variation of total ischeemic burden and its alteration with antianginal agents

Lancet

(1988)

Cited by (40)

State of the art approach to managing angina and ischemia: tailoring treatment to the evidence
2021, European Journal of Internal Medicine
Citation Excerpt :
There are no convincing data proving that BB are more effective than other antianginal drugs to treat angina or to prolong total exercise duration. The studies quoted by the ESC CCS guideline task-force to support their preferential use had small sample sizes and short follow up periods [30, 31] (n=17 for 12 weeks, and n= 608 for 6 weeks), whereas in a meta-analysis used to support their argument, they were found no more effective than other anti-anginal agents (32). All studies were conducted before the combination of aspirin, statin and RAAS inhibitors became standard of care (4).
Stable angina represents a chronic and often debilitating condition that affects daily activities and quality of life in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a four-step approach for the medical treatment of patients taking into consideration hemodynamic variables (heart rate and blood pressure) and the presence or absence of left ventricular dysfunction. However, CCS patients often have several comorbidities and risk factors. Thus, a tailored approach that takes into consideration patient risk factors and comorbidities may have additional benefits beyond angina relief. This is a state of the art review of stable angina treatment based on the currently available evidence.
The ESC 2019 CCS guidelines: Have we left our patients and scientific evidence behind?
2020, European Journal of Internal Medicine
Citation Excerpt :
Finally, there is a metanalysis of 90 randomized or crossover studies which compared antianginal drugs from different classes (LAN, calcium antagonists and beta-blockers) showing equivalent effectiveness of all three classes in the treatment of stable angina [12]. Regarding the use of beta blockers for angina prophylaxis, the evidence for recommendation by the ESC guideline is based on two double-blind studies with 608 and 17 patients respectively while the follow up period was 6 and 12 weeks respectively [13,14]. The end-points were exercise parameters.
Stable angina pectoris
2017, Coronary Artery Disease: From Biology to Clinical Practice
Stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) is generally characterized by episodes of reversible myocardial demand/supply mismatch, related to ischemia or hypoxia, which are usually inducible by exercise, emotion, or other stress and reproducible but also may be occurring spontaneously. Such episodes of ischemia/hypoxia are commonly associated with transient chest discomfort (angina pectoris). SCAD also includes the stabilized, often asymptomatic, phases that follow an acute coronary syndrome. Within the population with stable coronary artery disease, an individual's prognosis can vary considerably, depending on baseline clinical, functional, and anatomical characteristics. Prognostic assessment is an important part of the management of patients with stable angina. On the one hand, it is important to reliably identify those patients with more severe forms of disease, who may have an improvement in outcome with more aggressive investigation and—potentially—intervention, including revascularization. On the other hand, it is also important to identify those patients with a less-severe form of disease and a good prognosis, thereby avoiding unnecessary invasive and noninvasive tests and revascularization procedures.
Management standards for stable coronary artery disease in India
2016, Indian Heart Journal
Citation Excerpt :
Beta-blockers have been compared to CCBs in numerous trials for the management of stable angina. With regard to the treatment efficacy against angina, beta-blockers and CCBs are found to be similar.75–77 Indeed, a couple of meta-analyses revealed that the CCBs and beta-blockers exert similar anti-anginal effects; nevertheless, beta-blockers were found to be associated with fewer adverse events than CCBs.73,78
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the important causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality globally, giving rise to more than 7 million deaths annually. An increasing burden of CAD in India is a major cause of concern with angina being the leading manifestation. Stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) is characterised by episodes of transient central chest pain (angina pectoris), often triggered by exercise, emotion or other forms of stress, generally triggered by a reversible mismatch between myocardial oxygen demand and supply resulting in myocardial ischemia or hypoxia. A stabilised, frequently asymptomatic phase following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is also classified as SCAD. This definition of SCAD also encompasses vasospastic and microvascular angina under the common umbrella.
Comparative efficacy of ranolazine versus atenolol for chronic angina pectoris
2005, American Journal of Cardiology
Citation Excerpt :
Although their quantitative effects on study end points were strikingly similar, ranolazine and atenolol produced the observed therapeutic effects through markedly divergent pharmacologic mechanisms. Atenolol therapy compared with placebo significantly decreased RPP at all time points during exercise, with greater effects at higher exercise loads, thus supporting the well-established consensus opinion that the therapeutic effects of atenolol are mediated through a decrease in cardiac work.5,7 In contrast, ranolazine therapy produced little or no effect on RPP at rest or at any point during exercise (Figure 3).
We investigated whether ranolazine therapy improves exercise-induced angina pectoris and myocardial ischemia compared with placebo or with standard doses of atenolol in patients who had chronic angina and evaluated the effects on hemodynamics at rest and during exercise. In this trial, 158 patients who had symptom-limited exercise discontinued β-blocker therapy and were randomized into a double-blind, 3-period, crossover study of 400 mg of immediate-release ranolazine 3 times daily, 100 mg/day of atenolol, or placebo, each administered for 1 week. Exercise tests were administered at the end of each treatment period. Therapy with ranolazine or atenolol produced statistically significant improvement in all 3 exercise end points compared with placebo. Compared with atenolol therapy, ranolazine therapy resulted in significantly longer total exercise duration and was statistically indistinguishable from atenolol for time to onset of angina and ST-segment depression. Except for a modest increase in systolic blood pressure at peak exercise during ranolazine therapy, hemodynamic measurements did not differ significantly during ranolazine and placebo therapies. In contrast, atenolol significantly decreased blood pressure, heart rate, and rate–pressure product at rest and during exercise compared with placebo or ranolazine. In conclusion, ranolazine therapy prolonged exercise duration and decreased exercise-induced ischemia and angina with quantitative effects equal to or greater than those with atenolol. Unlike atenolol, the anti-ischemic and antianginal effects of ranolazine occurred without decreases in blood pressure, heart rate, or rate–pressure product.
Expert consensus document on β-adrenergic receptor blockers
2005, Revista Espanola de Cardiologia

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: This study was supported in part by a grant from Pfizer Laboratories, New York, New York.

View full text

Comparison of Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system and Atenolol on antianginal efficacies and exercise hemodynamic responses in stable angina pectoris☆

Abstract

Am J Cardiol

Am J Cardiol

Am J Cardiol

J Am Coll Cardiol

Int J Cordial

Am J Cordial

Am J Med

Am J Med

Am J Med

J Am Coll Cardiol

Am J Cordial

Am J Cardiol

Am Heart J

Am J Cardiol

Am J Cardiol

Lancet