[Use of verapamil vs. beta blockers in patients with myocardial infarct. Retrospective evaluation of the yearly case load of a coronary care unit].

BACKGROUND, MATERIALS AND METHODS: To compare the relative use of verapamil and beta-blockers, which have shown comparable efficacy in reducing mortality and reinfarction rates in selected patients with myocardial infarction (MI), we retrospectively evaluated the ongoing treatment at the time of the pre-discharge evaluation in 221 consecutive patients (167 males and 54 females; mean age: 62.3 +/- 10.8 years) discharged alive in 1994 from our Hospital with the diagnosis of Q-wave MI.

RESULTS

The examination of the computerized files of our central database, showed that verapamil was administered (as a monotherapy or in association) to 4% of the patients, compared to 34% of beta-blockers. The choice between the two drugs appeared not to be influenced by age (62 +/- 11 vs 57 +/- 8 years), anterior (70% vs 57%) or inferior (30% vs 40%) MI location or echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction (50.2 +/- 10% vs 52.3 +/- 11%), which were comparable in both groups. On the other hand, beta-blockers were used significantly more often (52% vs 10%; p < 0.05) in the presence of hypertension, while verapamil was preferred (although statistical significance was not reached) in patients with contraindications to beta-blockers, such as chronic obstructive lung disease or peripheral artery disease (20% vs 9% and 10% vs 4%; p = ns, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our study gives, for the first time, an estimate of the real use of verapamil in patients with MI, confirming, in keeping with the indications in the literature, that its administration is limited and essentially reserved to patients with contraindications to beta-blockers. A wider use of verapamil (and even more of beta-blockers) would be however hoped for, due to the relevant number of patients (62% of our population) treated with drugs, such as diltiazem, dihydropyridines or nitrates, for which a conclusive demonstration of efficacy on major clinical end-points are lacking.