Trial reportHeart (British Cardiac Society)2000
Randomised comparison of the effects of nicardipine and esmolol on coronary artery wall stress: implications for the risk of plaque rupture.
Trial report in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of biomechanical factors in plaque rupture and erosion: insight from intravascular imaging based computational modeling.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Review
- Blunt aortic injuries in the new era: radiologic findings and polytrauma risk assessment dictates management strategy.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether the beta blocker esmolol reduces coronary artery wall stress more than the short acting dihydropyridine calcium antagonist nicardipine.
designRandomised double blind placebo controlled trial.
settingTertiary cardiology centre. PATIENTS: Patients with coronary artery disease.
interventions20 patients were randomised double blind to an infusion of nicardipine (n = 10) or esmolol (n = 10) titrated to reduce systolic blood pressure by 20 mm Hg.
main outcome measuresPeak systolic wall circumferential stress.
resultsEsmolol reduced peak coronary stress by a mean of 0.17 x 10(6) dyn/cm(2) (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.21 x 10(6) dyn/cm(2)) compared with a reduction of 0.07 x 10(6) dyn/cm(2) (95% CI 0.05 to 0.10 x 10(6) dyn/cm(2)) after nicardipine. Peak systolic radius was reduced by 0.04 mm (95% CI 0.03 to 0.06 mm) after esmolol compared with an increase of 0.08 mm (95% CI 0.05 to 0.10 mm) after nicardipine. Heart rate increased by 11.5 beats/min (95% CI 6.9 to 16.2 beats/min) after nicardipine and decreased by 5.3 beats/min (95% CI 1.9 to 8.6 beats/min) after esmolol.
conclusionsIntravenous esmolol is more effective than nicardipine at reducing circumferential coronary artery wall stress.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.