This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jøgen Fischer Hansen, MD, PhD
Hvidovre, Denmark

Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(19):2277-2281.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The Secondary Prevention Reinfarction Israel Nifedipine Trial 2 study recently published in the ARCHIVES¹ demonstrates the importance of testing the value of each calcium-channel blocker for secondary prevention after an acute myocardial infarction and consideration that all calcium-channel blockers are not equal,² probably contrary to β-blockers.³

In an accompanying editorial, Deedwania and Carbajal⁴ discuss secondary prevention underlining aspirin and β-blockers as first-time treatment, which is now generally accepted. But, as stated in the editorial, a major problem is that after an acute myocardial infarction only 20% to 30% of the patients were treated with β-blockers. The most likely explanation of this low figure is that contraindications to, or unacceptable side effects of, β-blockers prevent their use in a large number of patients. For this reason, it is important to look for alternatives to β-blockers for secondary prevention.

Deedwania and Carbajal also describe diltiazem as an established . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?