• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

心脏结局评估试验(COMET)是否解决了关于卡维地洛在心力衰竭治疗中是否优于美托洛尔的争议?

Has COMET solved the controversy as to whether carvedilol is better than metoprolol in heart failure?

作者信息

Doggrell Sheila A

机构信息

Doggrell Biomedical Communications, 47 Caronia Crescent, Lynfield, Auckland, New Zealand.

出版信息

Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004 Jan;5(1):205-8. doi: 10.1517/14656566.5.1.205.

DOI:10.1517/14656566.5.1.205
PMID:14680448
Abstract

Carvedilol and metoprolol are beta(1)-adrenoceptor antagonists that decrease mortality in heart failure. It is not clear whether the ancillary properties, which carvedilol has but metoprolol does not have, contribute to the beneficial effect. The Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) compared metoprolol tartrate (mean daily dose 85 mg) and carvedilol (41.8 mg) in patients with heart failure. All-cause mortality was less in the carvedilol than the metoprolol group, indicating that at these doses, carvedilol has a mortality benefit over metoprolol. However, the beta(1)-adrenoceptor blocking activity of metoprolol tartrate (assessed by a decrease in heart rate) was slightly less than with carvedilol in COMET and less than that observed in previous mortality studies with metoprolol, suggesting that the use of metoprolol tartrate was not optimal in COMET.

摘要

卡维地洛和美托洛尔是β(1)肾上腺素能受体拮抗剂,可降低心力衰竭患者的死亡率。目前尚不清楚卡维地洛所具有而美托洛尔不具有的辅助特性是否有助于产生有益效果。卡维地洛或美托洛尔欧洲试验(COMET)比较了酒石酸美托洛尔(平均日剂量85毫克)和卡维地洛(41.8毫克)在心力衰竭患者中的应用。卡维地洛组的全因死亡率低于美托洛尔组,这表明在这些剂量下,卡维地洛比美托洛尔具有更低的死亡率。然而,在COMET试验中,酒石酸美托洛尔的β(1)肾上腺素能受体阻断活性(通过心率降低来评估)略低于卡维地洛,且低于以往美托洛尔死亡率研究中观察到的水平,这表明在COMET试验中酒石酸美托洛尔的使用并非最佳。

相似文献

1
Has COMET solved the controversy as to whether carvedilol is better than metoprolol in heart failure?心脏结局评估试验(COMET)是否解决了关于卡维地洛在心力衰竭治疗中是否优于美托洛尔的争议?
Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004 Jan;5(1):205-8. doi: 10.1517/14656566.5.1.205.
2
[Beta-adrenolytics in heart failure--are they all really equal?].[β-肾上腺素能阻滞剂治疗心力衰竭——它们真的都一样吗?]
Przegl Lek. 2005;62 Suppl 2:39-42.
3
Commentary on the Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET).卡维地洛或美托洛尔欧洲试验(COMET)评论
Am J Cardiol. 2004 May 6;93(9A):40B-2B. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.01.005.
4
Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised controlled trial.卡维地洛或美托洛尔欧洲试验(COMET)中卡维地洛与美托洛尔对慢性心力衰竭患者临床结局的比较:随机对照试验
Lancet. 2003 Jul 5;362(9377):7-13. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13800-7.
5
[A randomized comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol in patients with chronic heart failure. The Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) ].卡维地洛与美托洛尔治疗慢性心力衰竭患者的随机对照研究。卡维地洛或美托洛尔欧洲试验(COMET)
Ugeskr Laeger. 2004 Aug 2;166(32):2671-4.
6
[Therapy of chronic heart failure--carvedilol vs. metoprolol. COMET Study].[慢性心力衰竭的治疗——卡维地洛与美托洛尔。COMET研究]
Internist (Berl). 2004 Jul;45(7):835-6. doi: 10.1007/s00108-004-1184-9.
7
Effects of metoprolol and carvedilol on pre-existing and new onset diabetes in patients with chronic heart failure: data from the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET).美托洛尔和卡维地洛对慢性心力衰竭患者既往存在的糖尿病及新发糖尿病的影响:来自卡维地洛或美托洛尔欧洲试验(COMET)的数据。
Heart. 2007 Aug;93(8):968-73. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2006.092379. Epub 2007 Jan 19.
8
The COMET trial.COMET试验。
Congest Heart Fail. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):39-47. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-5299.2005.04076.x.
9
In heart failure, all beta-blockers are not necessarily equal.在心力衰竭中,并非所有的β受体阻滞剂都一样。
Cleve Clin J Med. 2003 Dec;70(12):1081-7. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.70.12.1081.
10
Rationale and design of the carvedilol or metoprolol European trial in patients with chronic heart failure: COMET.卡维地洛或美托洛尔治疗慢性心力衰竭患者的欧洲试验的原理与设计:COMET研究
Eur J Heart Fail. 2002 Jun;4(3):321-9. doi: 10.1016/s1388-9842(02)00025-9.