2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02262-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diltiazem in acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic agents: a randomised placebo-controlled trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The use of calcium channel blockers in the presence of LVD has been challenged in clinical practice in the past decade [25]. However, among the calcium antagonists, diltiazem was demonstrated to exhibit the best profile without a significant negative inotropic effect and an improvement in cardiac function following coronary ischaemia [26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of calcium channel blockers in the presence of LVD has been challenged in clinical practice in the past decade [25]. However, among the calcium antagonists, diltiazem was demonstrated to exhibit the best profile without a significant negative inotropic effect and an improvement in cardiac function following coronary ischaemia [26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, the earliest detection of a lack of efficacy of the experimental treatment in the EMIAT trial was provided by the triangular test. While several trials have been stopped early for harm from experimental therapy [5, 18], early stopping for lack of difference between the experimental and the control treatments remain s rare [12]. In contrast with the triangular test, the Lan & DeMets method does not provide rules to stop a trial early when there is a lack of difference between treatments.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…85 However, a moderate-sized randomized trial of diltiazem vs placebo after thrombolysis found no significant advantage to active therapy even when the combined primary end point included refractory ischemia. 86 Thus, the reported differences by CCB class (non-DHP vs DHP) are without prospective confirmatory evidence of non-DHP benefits for major cardiovascular outcomes.…”
Section: Coronary Artery Disease-acute Coronary Syndromesmentioning
confidence: 98%