Stoeckelhuber Beate Maria, Suttmann Ingo, Stoeckelhuber Mechthild, Kueffer Georg
Department of Radiology, Universitätsklinikum Lübeck der Medizinischen Universität zu Lübeck, Germany.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003 Jun;14(6):749-54. doi: 10.1097/01.rvi.0000079984.80153.5e.
To compare the vasodilating effect and safety of intraarterial verapamil with the long-accepted standard vasodilators nitroglycerin and tolazoline in hand angiography.
The authors studied 25 patients who underwent brachial artery angiography. In 22 cases, there was poor or moderate visualization of the forearm and hand vasculature. To improve blood flow to the periphery, subsequent angiograms with intraarterial vasodilating agents were obtained. First, nitroglycerin was administered (n = 22). In cases of continuous poor or moderate visualization of the forearm and hand vasculature, another angiogram was obtained with verapamil (n = 21). If opacification remained poor or moderate, eventually tolazoline was injected (n = 20). To avoid pharmacologic interactions of the different vasodilating drugs, a minimum 15-minute interval between series was observed. The degree of opacification of the forearm and hand arteries was graded on a scale from 1 to 5: visualization of the forearm arteries only was defined as 1, of the forearm arteries and superficial/deep palmar arch as 2, of the forearm arteries, superficial/deep palmar arch, and digital arteries to the level of the metacarpophalangeal joints as 3, to the level of the proximal interphalangeal joints as 4, and to the distal interphalangeal joints as 5.
All three vasodilating agents demonstrated highly significant improvement in blood flow; verapamil and tolazoline showed statistically greater effects than nitroglycerin. Verapamil caused the fewest and least severe adverse effects.
Intraarterial verapamil and tolazoline are comparable in terms of vasodilatory efficacy in hand arteries. However, because of its favorable adverse effect profile, verapamil is recommended for optimizing visualization of the peripheral arterial vascular system.
在手部血管造影中,比较动脉内维拉帕米与长期公认的标准血管扩张剂硝酸甘油和妥拉唑啉的血管扩张作用及安全性。
作者研究了25例行肱动脉血管造影的患者。22例患者前臂和手部血管系统显影不佳或中等。为改善外周血流,随后使用动脉内血管扩张剂进行血管造影。首先给予硝酸甘油(n = 22)。如果前臂和手部血管系统持续显影不佳或中等,则使用维拉帕米进行另一组血管造影(n = 21)。如果显影仍然不佳或中等,最终注射妥拉唑啉(n = 20)。为避免不同血管扩张药物的药理相互作用,两组之间至少间隔15分钟。前臂和手部动脉的显影程度按1至5级分级:仅前臂动脉显影定义为1级,前臂动脉和浅/深掌弓显影为2级,前臂动脉、浅/深掌弓以及至掌指关节水平的指动脉显影为3级,至近端指间关节水平为4级,至远端指间关节水平为5级。
所有三种血管扩张剂均显示出血流有高度显著改善;维拉帕米和妥拉唑啉的作用在统计学上比硝酸甘油更大。维拉帕米引起的不良反应最少且最轻微。
动脉内维拉帕米和妥拉唑啉在手部动脉的血管扩张疗效方面相当。然而,由于其有利的不良反应特征,推荐使用维拉帕米来优化外周动脉血管系统的显影。