-
1.
[Management of ureteric colic with ketorolac and nifedipin vs. ketorolac and tamsulosin in the emergency room].
Montiel-Jarquín, ÁJ, Rocha-Rocha, VM, Solís-Mendoza, HA, Romero-Figueroa, MS, Etchegaray-Morales, I, Alvarado-Ortega, I
Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. 2017;:S20-S25
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ureteric colic is the most common symptom of lithiasis. It is caused by the presence of stones accumulated in the renal papillae. These stones often migrate down the ureter, causing a ureteric colic, characterized by a severe pain in the lumbar region. The aim of this study was to compare the use of ketorolac and nifedipine vs. ketorolac and tamsulosin for the medical treatment of pain caused by stones in the lower ureter. METHODS Longitudinal study of 150 patients of 21-years or older with stones in the lower third of the ureter. 50% received ketorolac and nifedipine and the other 50%, ketorolac and tamsulosin. The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) was used for the assessment of pain at admission and 4 and 12 hours after the treatment was administered. We used descriptive and inferential statistics (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon, chi-squared and Poisson regression). RESULTS Mean age was 38.17 years; 54.7% were male and 45.3% female. NPRS mean was 9.69 (initially), 7.42 (at 4 hours) and 2.05 (at 12 hours). There were no significant differences in the initial measurement of pain between groups (p < 0.005); four and 12 hours later the pain decreased more in patients managed with ketorolac and nifedipine, p = 0.0041. There were no complications nor side effects in both treatments. CONCLUSION The use of ketorolac and nifedipine is more effective than the use of ketorolac and tamsulosin for the management of pain caused by lower ureteral colic during the first 12 hours of treatment.
-
2.
RETRACTED: Nicorandil vs nifedipine for the treatment of preterm labour: a randomized clinical trial.
Rezk, M, Sayyed, T, Masood, A, Dawood, R
European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. 2015;:27-30
Abstract
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. The editors were alerted to the following concerning features of this trial: The submission date is impossible. Patients were recruited at 24 to 34 weeks (mean 31 w). 18% of participants delivered after 37 weeks. Average recruitment 26 per month. Recruitment ended September 2014 but the paper was received by journal on 23 October 2014. The second author, Sayyed T, is co-author of related retracted papers in BJOG. In view of these concerns we wrote to Dr Rezk who had no satisfactory explanation and declined to share the data. We have therefore decided to retract.
-
3.
Randomized trial comparing the effects of a low-dose combination of nifedipine GITS and valsartan versus high-dose monotherapy on central hemodynamics in patients with inadequately controlled hypertension: FOCUS study.
Park, JB, Ha, JW, Jung, HO, Rhee, MY, ,
Blood pressure monitoring. 2014;(5):294-301
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Measurement of central blood pressure provides prognostic information beyond conventional peripheral blood pressure (BP). However, few studies have directly compared the effects of antihypertensives on central hemodynamics. This study investigated the effects of a low-dose combination of nifedipine Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System (GITS) and valsartan versus high-dose monotherapy with either agent in reducing central BP in essential hypertension inadequately controlled by low-dose monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this prospective, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, multicenter 8-week study, patients not meeting the target BP after 4 weeks of treatment with low-dose monotherapy were randomized to receive nifedipine GITS 30 mg plus valsartan 80 mg (N30+V80), nifedipine GITS 60 mg (N60), or valsartan 160 mg (V160) for a further 4 weeks. Central hemodynamics were measured by applanation tonometry. RESULTS A total of 391 patients were enrolled. Reduction in central systolic BP from baseline to week 8, the primary efficacy variable, was significantly greater in the N30+V80 group (-27.2±14.7 mmHg) and the N60 group (-27.1±16.5 mmHg) compared with V160 group (-14.4±16.6 mmHg). Decrease in the augmentation index in the N60 group was significantly greater compared with V160 alone, without differences between combination therapy and either high-dose monotherapy. Decreases in brachial systolic BP were significantly greater in the N30+V80 and N60 groups than in the V160 group. By multiple regression analysis, most differences in drug effects on central hemodynamics disappeared after controlling for changes in peripheral BP. A low rate of adverse events occurred in all treatment groups. CONCLUSION A low-dose combination of nifedipine GITS plus valsartan or high-dose nifedipine was more effective in improving central hemodynamics than high-dose valsartan in patients with hypertension, mostly because of the improvement in peripheral (brachial) hemodynamics.
-
4.
Effect of nifedipine versus telmisartan on prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrence in hypertensive patients.
Du, H, Fan, J, Ling, Z, Woo, K, Su, L, Chen, S, Liu, Z, Lan, X, Zhou, B, Xu, Y, et al
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979). 2013;(4):786-92
Abstract
It is controversial whether angiotensin II receptor blockers provide better protection than calcium antagonists against atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence in hypertensive patients. This study was designed to compare the effect of nifedipine- and telmisartan-based antihypertensive treatments for preventing AF recurrence in hypertensive patients with paroxysmal AF. A total of 149 hypertensive patients with paroxysmal AF were randomized to nifedipine- or telmisartan-based antihypertensive treatment groups. The target blood pressure (BP) was <130/80 mm Hg. Clinic BP, ECG, Holter monitoring, and echocardiography were followed up for 2 years. The primary end point was the incidence of overall and persistent AF recurrence. During follow-up, there was no statistical difference in the rate of patients lowering to target BP between both groups, whereas nifedipine group had slightly better BP control but similar heart rate control at 24 months. The incidence of AF recurrence was similar in both groups (nifedipine versus telmisartan: 58.7% versus 55.4%; P=0.742), and Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in the freedom from AF recurrence (log-rank test; P=0.48). However, the rate of developing persistent AF in telmisartan group was lower than that in nifedipine group (5.4% versus 16.0%; P=0.035). Patients in telmisartan group had lower values of left atrial diameter, left atrial volume index, and left ventricular mass index at the end of follow-up. The effects of telmisartan in preventing AF recurrences in hypertensive patients with paroxysmal AF after intensive lowering BP is similar to that of nifedipine, but telmisartan has more potent effects on preventing progression to persistent AF.
-
5.
Comparison of the effects of long-acting nifedipine CR and diltiazem R in patients with vasospastic angina: Aomori coronary spastic angina study.
Higuma, T, Oikawa, K, Kato, T, Mori, Y, Kudo, T, Yamamoto, T, Hoshi, Y, Kameda, K, Suto, N, Fujita, N, et al
Journal of cardiology. 2010;(3):354-60
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We compared the efficacy of once-daily administration of nifedipine CR 40 mg (N) with that of twice-daily diltiazem R 100mg (D) in patients with vasospastic angina (VSA) registered in 8 cardiovascular institutes in Aomori Prefecture. METHODS AND RESULTS VSA was diagnosed by the ischemic ST segment changes during chest pain attacks at rest and/or acetylcholine induction test done during coronary angiography. Thirty-seven patients were randomly allocated to either the N (n=20) or D group (n=17). The number of symptomatic attacks and amount of short-acting nitrate use were examined based on data in diaries written by the patients. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. The mean number (median number) of attacks per week was significantly decreased in the N group from 2.56 (2.0) at baseline to 0.41 (0.0) after 4 weeks of treatment, to 0.24 (0.0) after 8 weeks, and to 0.36 (0.0) after 12 weeks (all p<0.05 vs. baseline). It was also decreased in D group from 2.71 (2.0) at baseline to 0.55 (0.0) after 4 weeks, to 0.32 (0.0) after 8 weeks, and to 0.27 (0.0) after 12 weeks (all p<0.05 vs. baseline). The numbers of attacks before and after treatment were comparable between N and D groups. In one patient in each of the N and D groups, the allocated drug was crossed over to the other due to recurrence of the attacks. One patient in each group experienced adverse effects and the drug was changed to the other. CONCLUSION Once-daily administration of nifedipine CR was as effective as twice-daily diltiazem R in the prevention of VSA attacks.
-
6.
Topical nifedipine with lidocaine ointment versus active control for pain after hemorrhoidectomy: results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized, double-blind study.
Perrotti, P, Dominici, P, Grossi, E, Cerutti, R, Antropoli, C
Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie. 2010;(1):17-24
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Spasm through the internal anal sphincter is one of the supposed causes for pain after hemorrhoidectomy, a common and distressing experience. We hypothesized that the addition of topical nifedipine to lidocaine would improve pain control by causing a relaxation of the smooth muscle of the internal anal sphincter. METHODS We conducted a multicentre randomized, double-blind trial to compare the efficacy of 0.3% nifedipine and 1.5% lidocaine ointment versus 1.5% lidocaine ointment alone in reducing pain after hemorrhoidectomy. A physician unaware of the treatment arm measured pain by use of the Analogue Chromatic Continuous Scale (ACCS) at baseline; soon after surgery; at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours after surgery; on day 7 after surgery; and at a final visit 14 days after surgery. The physician also noted the time to first analgesic administration within 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS In all, 135 patients per group participated (270 total). Evaluation of the delta ACCS score versus basal value, a covariate for rescue analgesic administration time, revealed better pain control in the group that received nifedipine with lidocaine at 6 hours after surgery and on day 7 (p < 0.011 and p < 0.054, respectively). We noticed no difference between groups for time of administration of rescue analgesic, blood pressure, heart rate or frequency of headache. CONCLUSION Although there was no difference between groups for time of administration of rescue analgesic after open hemorrhoidectomy, the patients' assessment of pain using ACCS showed that the use of topical nifedipine with lidocaine may provide a slight significant difference in favour of the study group at 6 hours and at day 7 after surgery. Narcotic analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration should continue to be recommended. Further research focusing on these outcomes is warranted.
-
7.
Effects of treatment with once-daily nifedipine CR and twice-daily benidipine on prevention of symptomatic attacks in patients with coronary spastic angina pectoris-Adalat Trial vs Coniel in Tokyo against Coronary Spastic Angina (ATTACK CSA).
Oikawa, Y, Matsuno, S, Yajima, J, Nakamura, M, Ono, T, Ishiwata, S, Fujimoto, Y, Aizawa, T
Journal of cardiology. 2010;(2):238-47
Abstract
BACKGROUND We compared the efficacy of once-daily treatment with nifedipine CR 40 mg (NR) and twice-daily treatment with benidipine 4 mg (BD) in patients with coronary spastic angina (CSA) registered in 3 cardiovascular institutes in Tokyo. METHODS AND RESULTS CSA was diagnosed by an ischemic ST change during Holter ECG monitoring or drug-induced test. Thirty patients were randomly allocated to either NR or BD group. The number of symptomatic attacks and the total frequency of short-acting nitrates were examined based on the data in diaries written by patients. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. The median number (25-75% quartile) of attacks per week was significantly decreased in NR group, i.e., 1.0 (0.8-2.0) at baseline, 0.0 (0.0-1.0) after 4 weeks of treatment, and 0.0 (0.0-0.0) after 8 weeks of treatment (P=0.0093, P=0.0002, Wilcoxon's rank-sum test). No significant decrease was observed in BD, i.e. 1.0 (0.5-2.0) at baseline, 1.3 (0.0-3.0) after 4 weeks, and 0.0 (0.0-1.0) after 8 weeks. The number of attacks was fewer in NR than in BD group (P=0.074, P=0.015, U-test for difference). CONCLUSION Once-daily treatment with NR 40 mg was more effective than twice-daily treatment with BD in the prevention of CSA attacks.
-
8.
[Comparative assessment of a calcium antagonist with controlled release of nifedipine and enalapril in arterial hypertension in subjects older than 60 years].
Oleĭnikov, VE, Grishaeva, EE, Borisova, NA, Iastrebova, EI, Fadeeva, SS
Kardiologiia. 2009;(5):34-9
Abstract
We compared antihypertensive effects and organoprotective action of a calcium antagonist nifedipine RD and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor enalapril in subjects older than 60 years with systolic diastolic (group 1) and isolated (group 2) I-II degree arterial hypertension. Subgroups of patients receiving nifedipine RD, enalapril, or combination therapy were distinguished. We used ultrasound methods for measurement of parameters of hypertrophy, systolic and diastolic function of the heart, increments of diameter and blood flow velocity in brachial artery during test with reactive hyperemia. Nifedipine RD appeared to be the drug of choice in elderly persons with isolated systolic form of arterial hypertension. Combination of calcium antagonists and ACE inhibitors in resistant hypertension in the elderly lead to achievement of target values of blood pressure and potentiation of organoprotective action of drugs.
-
9.
Influence of nifedipine coat-core and amlodipine on systemic arterial stiffness modulated by sympathetic and parasympathetic activity in hypertensive patients.
Fukuda, M, Masuda, T, Ogura, MN, Moriya, T, Tanaka, K, Yamamoto, K, Ishii, A, Yonezawa, R, Noda, C, Izumi, T
Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension. 2009;(5):392-8
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of nifedipine coat-core (once daily formulation) and amlodipine on systemic arterial stiffness in patients with hypertension. Study drugs were assigned by the randomized open-label crossover method. After the blood pressure was maintained below 130/85 mm Hg for 8 months by treatment with either drug in 48 hypertensive patients (aged 63.2+/-6.9 years; 64.5% men), they were switched to the other drug for another 8 months. The blood pressure, heart rate, plasma catecholamine level and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity were measured before and after a bicycle ergometer testing. Heart rate recovery was calculated from the change of the heart rate after treadmill exercise testing. The high-frequency and low-frequency components of the heart rate variability spectrum were analyzed from 24-h Holter electrocardiograms. The change of blood pressure after exercise testing showed no significant difference between the two medications. However, the increases of heart rate, noradrenalin and branchial-ankle pulse wave velocity after exercise were significantly smaller with nifedipine treatment than with amlodipine (P=0.0472, P=0.006 and P=0.0472, respectively). Heart rate recovery was significantly faster with nifedipine treatment (P=0.0280). The nighttime high-frequency component of heart rate variability was significantly larger after nifedipine treatment than after amlodipine (P=0.0259), while the nighttime low/high-frequency ratio was significantly smaller with nifedipine (P=0.0429). Nifedipine reduced functional arterial stiffness and improved heart rate recovery by altering the autonomic activity balance in hypertensive patients.
-
10.
Nifedipine versus carvedilol in the treatment of de novo arterial hypertension after liver transplantation: results of a controlled clinical trial.
Galioto, A, Semplicini, A, Zanus, G, Fasolato, S, Sticca, A, Boccagni, P, Frigo, AC, Cillo, U, Gatta, A, Angeli, P
Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society. 2008;(7):1020-8
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare nifedipine and carvedilol in the treatment of de novo arterial hypertension after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). The study included 50 patients who developed arterial hypertension after OLT. Twenty-five patients received nifedipine (group A), and 25 received carvedilol (group B). Patients were defined as intolerant to nifedipine or carvedilol if severe adverse effects developed. These patients stopped the first drug and were switched to the other one. Patients were defined as full responders to monotherapy if there was normalization of blood pressure, and they were defined as partial responders by the need to add a second antihypertensive drug, ramipril. The 2 groups of patients were similar for baseline conditions. At the end of the study, patients intolerant to monotherapy were 48% of group A and 12.5% of group B (P < 0.01). Full responders were 20% of group A and 33.33% of group B (P < 0.01). Partial responders were 22% of group A and 54.1% of group B (P < 0.01). The addition of ramipril normalized blood pressure in 19% of partial responders to monotherapy (75% in partial responders to nifedipine and 30% in partial responders to carvedilol, P < 0.01). In responders to either monotherapy or combined therapy, there was a significant improvement of renal function. In responders to carvedilol, but not in responders to nifedipine, the daily dose of tacrolimus at 1 year should be reduced to 50% compared to the baseline dose to maintain the blood trough level in the therapeutic range.