Search

Syndrome X is characterized by an abnormal vasomotility of coronary microvessels. It is unknown whether the presence of an ischemic-like pattern in the electrocardiogram at rest (T-wave inversion) reflects a more severe vasomotion disturbance. Changes in coronary sinus flow (thermodilution) and epicardial vessel diameter (quantitative angiography) during adrenergic activation were measured with a standard cold pressor test in patients with syndrome X whose electrocardiogram at rest was normal (group 1: 17 patients) or showed stable, symmetrically inverted T waves (group 2: 22 patients). Cold pressor test increased mean blood pressure and rate-pressure product to a similar extent in both groups, increased coronary sinus flow in group 1 (88 +/- 29 to 119 +/- 36 ml/min; p less than 0.05) and not in group 2 (109 +/- 37 vs 104 +/- 36 ml/min; p = not significant), and decreased coronary resistance in group 1 (1.38 +/- 0.42 to 1.19 +/- 0.38 mm Hg/ml/min; p less than 0.05) and augmented it in group 2 (1.06 +/- 0.32 to 1.28 +/- 0.43 mm Hg/ml/min; p less than 0.02). During cold stimulus, the proximal and middle segments of epicardial arteries showed negligible changes in their lumen, whereas the distal segment dilated in group 1 (1.81 +/- 0.27 to 2.01 +/- 0.32 mm; p less than 0.05) and constricted in group 2 (1.82 +/- 0.12 to 1.62 +/- 0.20 mm; p less than 0.05). Differences in coronary hemodynamic and angiographic responses between the groups were statistically significant (p less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Study Objective: To test whether propranolol may influence the progression of coronary atherosclerosis., Design: Repeat coronary angiography after two year treatment and evaluation of changes in coronary narrowings., Setting: Subjects with effort angina of recent onset requiring coronary angiography and medical treatment., Patients: 80 untreated patients, with a greater than or equal to 50 percent focal narrowing on a major coronary branch associated or not with a less than 50 percent stenosis of other major branches. They were randomized to isosorbide dinitrate (40 mg bid) (group 1, control group) or to propranolol (80 mg qid) (group 2, treatment group)., Results: At restudy, there were more diseased vessels and These narrowings per patient in both groups. Multivessel involvement and greater than or equal to 50 percent obstructions were also augmented. These changes were not statistically significant. Patients with progression of the stenotic tracts (both greater than or equal to 50 percent and less than 50 percent were 19 (48 percent) in group 1 and 28 (70 percent) in group 2 (p less than 0.05). Narrowings with progression were 25 in group 1 and 48 in group 2. Thirteen narrowings in group 1 and 15 in group 2 were newly detected at restudy. Eighteen patients (45 percent) in group 1 and nine (23 percent) in group 2 had a steady disease. Smoking, high blood pressure, family history of coronary disease, blood glucose values and lipid levels were considered; the only significant group differences were 31 percent rise of total triglyceride and 23 percent decrease of HDL cholesterol in patients who were treated with propranolol., Conclusions: Propranolol showed an adverse influence on coronary atherosclerosis, regarding the evolution of both greater than or equal to 50 percent and less than 50 percent narrowings and not the formation of new stenoses. Changes in serum lipid values might have a role.

In 18 patients (12 females) presenting with effort-induced chest pain and normal coronary angiograms (syndrome X), 10 mg sublingual nifedipine increased the lumen of major coronary arteries (quantitative angiography) by 13% +/- 10 (p less than 0.01), coronary blood flow (thermodilution) by 23% +/- 26 (p less than 0.05), norepinephrine plasma concentration by 60% +/- 42 (p less than 0.01), and reduced the global ST segment shift during the effort stress test from 8.8 +/- 4.1 to 7 +/- 6.8 mm (p less than 0.03) at comparable maximal workload and at unchanged double product. There was a correlation (positive) of changes in flow with changes in coronary lumen diameter (r = 0.65, p less than 0.01), with ST segment response to exercise (r = 0.83, p less than 0.001), and with (inverse) norepinephrine plasma concentration (r = -0.70, p less than 0.01); no correlation was found between ST segment response and changes in arterial lumen diameter. In a few cases nifedipine did not improve or even worsened the response to exercise; in them coronary flow was unchanged or reduced and norepinephrine plasma levels were modestly or greatly increased, respectively. After 4-week treatment with nifedipine (10-20 mg 4 times daily), the effort ST segment shift was further diminished to 4.4 +/- 3.5 mm (p less than 0.03) despite a slightly increased double product. Plasma norepinephrine values, as compared to those following acute nifedipine, were reduced by 40% in patients with further improvement and unchanged in patients whose exercise performance did not vary.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

In effort angina the exercise test can shift the ST-segment during the active phase and/or recovery. To investigate whether coronary vasomotility has some part in these electrocardiographic patterns, in 15 patients with stable effort angina we performed a quantitative angiographic evaluation of single, significant coronary stenoses (greater than 50%) during: spontaneous rhythm, graded atrial pacing (max 160 b/min) and at 1-3-5 min of recovery, both without drugs and after Ca-blockade (nifedipine, 10 mg sl). The greatest ST changes were at peak of the pacing in 9 patients (Group 1) and at recovery in 6 (Group 2). In each patient the stenotic lumen was reduced by atrial pacing (-9%, p less than 0.03); in Group 1 the lumen recovered soon after the end of the pacing, whereas in Group 2 narrowings became greater (-17%, p less than 0.02) at about 3 min of the recovery phase. In both groups nifedipine did not prevent the enhancement of the stenosis during pacing, but avoided constriction and ST changes during recovery in Group 2. Thus, in effort angina a superimposed active vasoconstriction contributes to the increase of the ST changes during the recovery phase of the exercise.

In 18 patients (12 women) presenting with effort-induced chest pain and normal coronary angiograms (syndrome X), 10 mg sublingual nifedipine increased the lumen of major coronary arteries (quantitative angiography) by 13 +/- 10% (p less than 0.01), coronary blood flow (thermodilution) by 23 +/- 26% (p less than 0.05), norepinephrine plasma concentration by 60 +/- 42% (p less than 0.01) and decreased the global ST-segment shift during the effort stress test from 8.8 +/- 4.1 to 7 +/- 6.8 mm (p less than 0.03) at comparable maximal workload and at unchanged double product. There was a correlation (positive) of changes in flow with changes in coronary lumen diameter (r = 0.65, p less than 0.01) with ST-segment response to exercise (r = 0.83, p less than 0.001) and with (inverse) norepinephrine plasma concentration (r = -0.70, p less than 0.01); no correlation was found between ST-segment response and changes in arterial lumen diameter. In a few cases, nifedipine did not improve or even worsened the response to exercise; coronary flow was unchanged or decreased and norepinephrine plasma levels were modestly or greatly increased, respectively. After 4 weeks of treatment with nifedipine (10 to 20 mg 4 times daily), the effort ST-segment shift was further decreased to 4.4 +/- 3.5 mm (p less than 0.03) despite a slightly increased double product. Plasma norepinephrine values, as compared to those after acute nifedipine, were decreased by 40% in patients with further improvement and were unchanged in patients whose exercise performance did not vary.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

In this study we tested whether Ca++ has a similar part in the coronary vasomotion of patients with syndrome X (n = 29) and patients with Prinzmetal angina pectoris (n = 12). Through quantitative angiography we evaluated the influence of nifedipine (10 mg sl) on the lumen diameter of proximal, mid and distal thirds of normal epicardial branches. The main differences in the coronary vasomotor reaction were: uniform vasodilatation in Prinzmetal angina and a variable response in syndrome X; greater increase in the coronary lumen in patients in the former as compared to those in the latter group who showed vasodilatation. The variable response in syndrome X was not related to changes in diastolic pressure and cardiac output. Patients showing coronary constriction were those who responded to nifedipine with a higher degree of tachycardia; this might suggest a neural participation in the paradoxical reaction to this drug. In the Prinzmetal group, on the contrary, at similar heart rate increase the pattern was invariably vasodilatation. Thus, calcium ions appear to have a different role in the coronary smooth muscle contractility of the 2 series of patients; in fact, in Prinzmetal angina nifedipine relaxed the coronary arteries more potently and made them unresponsive to stimuli which were still able to cause vasoconstriction in syndrome X.

The antiischemic effects of the beta-1 selective beta-blocker metoprolol were studied in 9 hospitalized patients with rest angina in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. After 3 days of placebo treatment, the patients were randomized to metoprolol 100 mg or placebo bid for 2 days, followed by 2 days on the alternative treatment. During the last 24 hours of each period, Holter monitoring was performed. The patients marked angina attacks and NTG consumption on diary cards. Metoprolol significantly reduced the mean number of ST-changes (run-in: 5.7 +/- 0.6; metoprolol: 2.2 +/- 0.9; p = 0.013), the mean maximal ST-change during the attacks (run-in: 3.0 +/- 1.2 mm; metoprolol: 1.5 +/- 0.4 mm; p = 0.015), the mean duration of the ST-changes (run-in: 7.0 +/- 0.6 min; metoprolol: 3.2 +/- 1.0 min; p = 0.015), and the total ischemic time/24 (run-in: 41.1 +/- 7.6; metoprolol: 13.1 +/- 7.2 min; p = 0.008). None of these parameters was modified by placebo. However, the difference between metoprolol and the randomized placebo did not reach statistical significance. Metoprolol also reduced the number of chest pain attacks (p = 0.008), the duration of the attacks (p = 0.051), the severity score of the attacks (p = 0.008), and NTG consumption (p = 0.018) with respect to the run-in period. Six of the patients showed marked improvement on metoprolol while 3 showed only slight improvement or no change. No patients experienced worsening of angina or ST-changes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

In 24 patients with spontaneous and effort-related angina (mixed angina), propranolol (80 mg q.i.d.) was significantly more beneficial than nifedipine (20 mg q.i.d.) on the number, duration and severity of the spontaneous manifestations. In some cases nifedipine elicited a paradoxical response. These patterns are unlikely to have resulted from different influences on the myocardial oxygen demands, since heart rate was steady before the occurrence of ischaemia and systemic arterial pressure was equally reduced in all patients. Sublingual nifedipine (10 mg) was tested in 12 patients and the residual lumen diameter of significant (greater than 50%) coronary stenoses (quantitative angiography) was unchanged in one, enhanced in seven and reduced in four of them. Lumen variations ranged from +1.59 to -1.2 mm and correlated closely with the results of oral nifedipine treatment. Propranolol (0.1 mg kg-1 i.v.) was tested in the other 12 cases and in none did variations of stenosis lumen diameter exceed 0.3 mm. These observations indicate that: in a number of lesions a portion of pliable wall may offer a compliant substrate for vasomotor influences; this may be the major factor whereby coronary obstructions cause spontaneous, besides effort-related angina; nifedipine is effective on the former manifestation provided that it does not promote stenosis constriction; propranolol may result in benefit through bradycardia facilitating coronary flow in diastole and reducing the baseline metabolic demands, to elevate the threshold of ischaemia during transient impedance to flow.

In 24 patients with stable spontaneous and effort-related angina, ischemic episodes at rest were not preceded by changes in circulatory variables (heart rate, systemic and pulmonary arterial pressures) that may raise myocardial oxygen consumption. We interpreted these episodes as caused by critical and reversible coronary flow reduction at the site of a stenotic lesion, and evaluated the clinical efficacy of nifedipine and propranolol in the treatment of this condition. Propranolol fully abolished or reduced the number of spontaneous ischemic episodes in a significantly larger number of patients than did nifedipine; it was also effective in several cases in whom nifedipine had failed or had even caused a paradoxic effect. Quantitative angiographic evaluation of the influence of nifedipine (Group 1, 12 patients, 10 mg sublingually) and propranolol (Group 2, 12 patients, 0.1 mg/kg intravenously) on the residual lumen diameter of 1 significant coronary stenosis in each patient showed that after nifedipine, the lumen was unchanged in 1, augmented in 7, and reduced in 4 cases; variations ranged between +1.59 and -1.2 mm, and their direction correlated closely with the influence of oral nifedipine on the episodes of spontaneous ischemia; and in no case did treatment with propranolol vary the stenosis lumen by more than 0.3mm. In this form of angina, a number of lesions seem to offer a compliant substrate for vasomotion and, possibly, for critical changes in flow. The vasomotor influences of nifedipine on these lesions are variable as well as the efficacy of the drug on the manifestations of ischemia at rest.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Flow impedance, probably of vasomotor origin, superimposed on severe coronary stenosis has been considered a trigger for the spontaneous component of angina occurring both on effort and at rest. To investigate more thoroughly this pathophysiologic aspect we evaluated (by means of quantitative coronary angiography) the acute vasomotor reaction to nifedipine (10 mg sublingually) of significant (greater than 50%) stenotic lesions in 22 patients with double-component angina. We also correlated this reaction with the clinical response (daily number of ischemic episodes evaluated by means of 48-hour Holter ambulatory monitoring) to treatment with nifedipine (20 mg four times a day); calcium channel blockade, in fact, is considered a specific remedy in cases of altered coronary vasomotility. Patients with Prinzmetal angina, who were known to have homogeneous coronary vasodilating reactions and favorable clinical responses to nifedipine, were studied by means of the same methods and served as the control group (14 patients). In double-component angina the residual lumen diameter of significant lesions was unchanged in two patients, enhanced in 10, and reduced in 10 after sublingual nifedipine; lumen variations from baseline values ranged from +1.29 to -1.56 mm. Acute changes in stenosis correlated closely with results obtained with oral treatment. In the group with Prinzmetal angina, coronary stenoses invariably responded with dilatation (the residual coronary lumen increased by an average of 69% of baseline); 100% of the patients in this group responded favorably to treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Calcium antagonists and beta blockers may retard or inhibit atherogenesis. This study investigated whether nifedipine or propranolol influences coronary atherosclerosis in humans. In selected patients with effort angina and proven coronary artery disease, the cineangiographic pattern after 2-year therapy with nifedipine (group 1, 39 patients), propranolol (group 2, 36 patients) or isosorbide dinitrate (group 3, 38 patients) was compared to that before treatment. The disease evolved to a different extent in the 3 groups. Patients with evidence of progression of old narrowings and appearance of new narrowings were significantly fewer in group 1 (31% and 10%) than in group 2 (53% and 34%) and group 3 (47% and 29%). The number of stenoses with evidence of progression was significantly smaller after nifedipine (14), and larger after propranolol (39) compared with group 3 (24). Thus, nifedipine seemed more protective than the other 2 drugs against coronary atherosclerosis. The coronary risk factors were normal in the nifedipine group and remained so with treatment, suggesting that they were dissociated from influences on atherosclerosis. The evolution, as judged by the number of narrowings with progression, appeared significantly (p less than 0.01) worse with propranolol than with isosorbide dinitrate. Propranolol caused unfavorable modifications of serum lipids; there was a 28% increase in total triglycerides and a 25% decrease in high density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months in group 2.

Variations induced by nifedipine (10 mg sublingually) in the residual lumen diameter of significant (greater than 50%) coronary lesions were assessed angiographically in 58 patients with effort angina (group 1) and in 19 patients with Prinzmetal angina (group 2). A relationship was sought between these acute variations of the stenotic lumen and the clinical response to treatment with the same drug (20 mg four times daily). Treatment efficacy was evaluated with exercise testing in group 1 and Holter monitoring in group 2. In group 1 the residual segment of stenotic diameter showed an increase, decrease, or no change with the calcium antagonist. Nifedipine failed to improve 40% of the cases (21% unchanged and 19% worsened) in group 1. In the same group of patients, the responses to exercise tests were dissociated from the acute vasomotor pattern. Changes in the pressure-rate product also did not explain the clinical results. In group 2 the majority of lesions had compliant portions, which invariably reacted to nifedipine with dilatation. All patients with the Prinzmetal form had relief of the anginal episodes with treatment. These data suggest that the therapeutic efficacy of nifedipine in classic effort angina probably is the net result of influences on the myocardial oxygen consumption and supply, and the acute coronary vasomotor pattern does not allow to predict the clinical response. Stenotic lesions in the Prinzmetal form possess a distinct sensitivity to the relaxant action of calcium channel blockade, which reasonably explains the highly positive response to treatment.

Changes induced by nifedipine (10 mg sublingually) in the residual luminal diameter of significant (greater than 50 percent) coronary lesions were assessed angiographically in 69 patients with effort-induced angina (group 1), in 22 patients with mixed angina (group 2), and in 14 patients with Prinzmetal's angina (group 3). These changes were related to the clinical response to treatment with the same drug, as evaluated through diary records and Holter monitoring in the mixed (spontaneous component) and Prinzmetal forms and through exercise testing in effort-induced and mixed (effort-associated component) angina. In groups 1 and 2, segments of stenotic vessels showed either an increase or decrease or no change in diameter with the calcium antagonist; in group 3, the majority of the lesions had compliant portions which invariably responded with dilatation. Nifedipine failed to improve cases with exertional (20 percent [14/69] unchanged; 19 percent [13/69] worsened) and mixed (41 percent [9/22] exacerbated) forms; 100 percent of the 14 patients with the Prinzmetal form had relief of the anginal episodes. In group 1, the response to exercise tests was dissociated from the short-term vasomotor pattern, and the pressure-rate product failed to explain the clinical results. Forty-five percent (ten) of the patients in group 2 showed significant short-term widening of critical stenoses, as well as obvious improvement; patients who did worse with treatment in this group had reacted to nifedipine with narrowing of critical stenoses. These data suggest that the response to nifedipine of classic effort-induced angina is probably the net result of an interaction of changes in myocardial oxygen consumption and supply; coronary vasomotion has a role in mixed angina, and influences of nifedipine may be either favorable or unfavorable; stenotic lesions in the Prinzmetal form are quite sensitive to the relaxant action of calcium blockade, and this probably represents a background to the highly positive clinical response to treatment.

Experimental data in animals indicate that coronary vasoconstriction occurs following blockade of the beta-adrenergic receptors or alpha-receptors activation. The vasomotor effects of these maneuvers in man are unclear. Therefore we investigated whether and to which extent alpha-stimulation (cold pressor test: CPT) and beta-blockade (propranolol) cause coronary vasoconstriction; whether this effect involves the resistance arterioles as well as the large epicardial branches, and, within these, whether the normal and stenotic tracts are involved. Patterns in patients with effort angina were compared with those in patients with Prinzmetal angina. We studied 19 cases with classic and 15 cases with Prinzmetal angina. The systemic, pulmonary and coronary hemodynamics (pressure, flow and resistance) and the vasomotor pattern of normal and stenotic epicardial branches (quantitative angiography) were evaluated in the baseline condition, during CPT, after propranolol (5 mg iv) and during CPT repeated after propranolol. We observed that: changes of the coronary flow due to beta-blockade and to CPT are related to the variations of the myocardial oxygen consumption, induced by the inhibition and activation of adrenergic receptors and not to the concomitant vasomotor reaction of the stenotic vascular tract; beta-blockade does not affect homogeneously the lumen of the stenotic lesions in effort angina and invariably increases the lumen in the Prinzmetal form; influences of CPT, in the absence as well as in the presence of beta-receptor blockade, on the lumen diameter of both normal vessels and stenotic lesions are minimal in either form of angina.

Calcium antagonists and beta-blockers may retard or inhibit atherogenesis. We tested whether nifedipine or propranolol may retard or induce regression of coronary atherosclerosis in man. In selected population of 113 patients with effort angina and proven coronary artery disease, the coronary cineangiographic pattern after 2 year therapy with nifedipine (Group 1, 39 patients), propranolol (Group 2, 36 patients), or isosorbide dinitrate (control group, 38 patients) was compared to the pre-treatment pattern. After 2 years the disease evolved to a different extent in the 3 groups. The number of lesions with evidence of progression was significantly smaller after nifedipine (14), and larger after propranolol (39) as compared with controls (24). Patients with evidence of progression of old lesions, and appearance of new lesions were significantly fewer in Group 1 than in Group 2 and in control patients. Thus, nifedipine seemed more protective than either of the other drugs against coronary atherosclerosis. The coronary risk factors were within normal limits in the nifedipine treated group and remained so with treatment supporting that they were likely dissociated from influences on atherosclerosis. The evolution, at least as judged by the number of lesions with progression, appeared significantly (p less than 0.01) worse with propranolol than with isosorbide dinitrate. This may prospect that nitrate contrasted the evolution of the disease, or that propranolol made it worse, possibly through unfavourable modifications of serum lipids (28% rise of total triglyceride and 25% decrease of HDL cholesterol were already detectable at 12 months in Group 2).

Changes induced by nifedipine (10 mg s.l.) in the residual lumen diameter of significant (greater than 50%) coronary lesions were assessed angiographically in 69 patients with effort angina (Group 1), in 22 patients with mixed angina (Group 2), and in 14 patients with Prinzmental angina (Group 3). These changes were related to the clinical response to treatment with the same drug (diary records, exercise testing, Holter monitoring). In Groups 1 and 2 segments of stenotic vessels showed either increase, decrease or no change in diameter with the calcium antagonist; in Group 3 the majority of the vessels showed compliant portions which invariably responded with dilatation. Nifedipine failed to improve cases with exertional (21% unchanged, 19% worsened) and mixed (41% exacerbated) forms; all patients with the Prinzmental form had relief of the anginal episodes. In Group 1, the response to exercise tests were dissociated from the acute vasomotor pattern and the pressure-rate product failed to explain the clinical results. Fifty-two percent of the patients in Group 2 showed significant acute widening of critical stenoses as well as obvious improvement; patients in this group who did worse with treatment had reacted to nifedipine with narrowing of their critical stenoses. These data suggest that: the response to nifedipine of classic effort angina is probably the net result of an interaction of changes in myocardial oxygen consumption and supply; coronary vasomotion has a role in mixed angina and influences of nifedipine may be either favorable or unfavorable; stenotic lesions in the Prinzmental form are quite sensitive to the relaxant action of calcium blockade and this probably represents a background to the highly positive clinical response to treatment.