Borzak S, Fenton T, Glasser S P, Shook T L, MacCallum G, Young P M, Stone P H
Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993 Jun;21(7):1605-11. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(93)90375-b.
We sought to define the extent to which the therapeutic efficacy of three single-drug regimens on ambulatory ischemia paralleled efficacy on other clinical manifestations of ischemia, specifically exercise test performance and anginal symptoms.
Some studies have shown that the presence and severity of ambulatory ischemia are predictive of anginal symptoms and exercise test performance, whereas other studies have not. Less is known about effects of antianginal treatment and whether response to therapy for one clinical manifestation reflects therapeutic responses for other clinical manifestations.
We studied 50 patients in the Angina and Silent Ischemia Study who had documented coronary disease, an exercise test positive for ischemia, the presence of ambulatory and asymptomatic ischemia on ambulatory electrocardiographic (ECG) Holter monitoring and stable anginal symptoms. Patients received maximally tolerated doses of sustained release propranolol (mean 293 mg/day), sustained release diltiazem (mean 350 mg/day), nifedipine (mean 79 mg/day) and placebo, each for 2-week periods in a double-blind, crossover fashion. Patients' responses to treatment were assessed by 48-h ambulatory ECG monitoring, exercise test (standard Bruce protocol) and diaries of angina. Levels of efficacy for each agent and for each clinical measure were compared using Spearman correlation analysis.
With placebo there was no correlation among the frequency of ischemic episodes by ambulatory ECG monitoring, exercise time to 1.0-mm ST segment depression or frequency of anginal episodes. Furthermore, for a given patient the efficacy of each active medication in reducing ambulatory ischemia was not correlated with response in anginal symptoms or exercise test performance (r = -0.21 to 0.24, p = NS). Within each of these clinical measures, efficacy of one drug was more strongly correlated with efficacy of another drug (r = 0.64 to 0.81 for ambulatory ischemia, 0.48 to 0.56 for exercise test performance and 0.16 to 0.54 for anginal symptoms).
Different measures of ischemia, specifically ambulatory ischemia assessed by ambulatory ECG monitoring, exercise performance on exercise test and anginal symptoms, are independent. Efficacy for each clinical end point must be assessed separately when considering response to drug treatment.
我们试图确定三种单药治疗方案对动态缺血的治疗效果在多大程度上与对其他缺血临床表现的效果相似,特别是运动试验表现和心绞痛症状。
一些研究表明,动态缺血的存在和严重程度可预测心绞痛症状和运动试验表现,而其他研究则不然。关于抗心绞痛治疗的效果以及对一种临床表现的治疗反应是否反映对其他临床表现的治疗反应,人们了解较少。
我们在心绞痛和无症状缺血研究中对50例患者进行了研究,这些患者有冠心病记录、运动试验缺血阳性、动态心电图(ECG)Holter监测存在动态和无症状缺血以及稳定的心绞痛症状。患者接受最大耐受剂量的缓释普萘洛尔(平均293毫克/天)、缓释地尔硫䓬(平均350毫克/天)、硝苯地平(平均79毫克/天)和安慰剂,每种药物治疗2周,采用双盲、交叉方式。通过48小时动态心电图监测、运动试验(标准Bruce方案)和心绞痛日记评估患者对治疗的反应。使用Spearman相关分析比较每种药物和每种临床指标的疗效水平。
使用安慰剂时,动态心电图监测的缺血发作频率、运动至1.0毫米ST段压低的时间或心绞痛发作频率之间无相关性。此外,对于给定患者,每种活性药物减少动态缺血的疗效与心绞痛症状或运动试验表现的反应无关(r = -0.21至0.24,p = 无显著性差异)。在这些临床指标中的每一项内,一种药物的疗效与另一种药物的疗效相关性更强(动态缺血的r = 0.64至0.81,运动试验表现的r = 0.48至0.56,心绞痛症状的r = 0.16至0.54)。
不同的缺血测量方法,特别是通过动态心电图监测评估的动态缺血、运动试验的运动表现和心绞痛症状,是相互独立的。在考虑药物治疗反应时,必须分别评估每个临床终点的疗效。