Circulation. 2004;109:1236-1243
Published online before print March 1, 2004,
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000118470.52908.D9
(Circulation. 2004;109:1236-1243.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Coronary Hyperemic Dose Responses of Intracoronary Sodium Nitroprusside
Walter A. Parham, MD;
Andre Bouhasin, MD;
Jeffrey P. Ciaramita, MD;
Souheil Khoukaz, MD;
Steven C. Herrmann, MD;
Morton J. Kern, MD
From the J. Gerard Mudd Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, St Louis University Health Sciences Center, St Louis, Mo.
Correspondence to Morton J. Kern, MD, J. Gerard Mudd Cardiac, Catheterization Laboratory, St Louis University Health Sciences Center, 3635 Vista Ave at Grand Blvd, PO Box 15250, St Louis, MO. E-mail kernm{at}slu.edu
Received August 28, 2003; revision received December 10, 2003; accepted December 11, 2003.
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Background— Sodium nitroprusside is one of several agents
considered effective for treating the no-reflow phenomenon during
acute coronary interventions. However, the coronary hyperemic
dose responses and systemic hemodynamic effects of intracoronary
nitroprusside have yet to be determined in humans. The purpose
of this study was to compare the hyperemic and hemodynamic responses
of intracoronary nitroprusside to intracoronary adenosine in
patients during cardiac catheterization with angiographically
normal anterior descending arteries.
Methods and Results— In 21 patients, coronary blood flow velocity (0.014-inch Doppler flow wire), heart rate, and blood pressure were measured in unobstructed left anterior descending coronary arteries at rest, after intracoronary adenosine (30- to 50-µg boluses), and after 3 serial doses (0.3-, 0.6-, and 0.9-µg/kg boluses) of intracoronary nitroprusside. Coronary reserve was calculated as hyperemia/basal coronary flow velocity. In an additional 9 patients with intermediate stenoses (53±7%), 14 fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements (using 0.014-inch pressure wire) were performed with both intracoronary adenosine and nitroprusside (0.6 µg/kg). Intracoronary nitroprusside produced equivalent coronary hyperemia with a longer duration (
25%) compared with intracoronary adenosine. Intracoronary nitroprusside (0.9 µg/kg) decreased systolic blood pressure by <20%, with minimal change in heart rate, whereas intracoronary adenosine had no effect on these parameters. FFR measurements with intracoronary nitroprusside were identical to those obtained with intracoronary adenosine (r=0.97).
Conclusions— Compared with adenosine, intracoronary nitroprusside produces an equivalent but more prolonged coronary hyperemic response in normal coronary arteries. Intracoronary nitroprusside, in doses commonly used for the treatment of the no-reflow phenomenon, can produce sustained coronary hyperemia without detrimental systemic hemodynamics. On the basis of FFR measurements compared with adenosine, sodium nitroprusside also appears to be a suitable hyperemic stimulus for coronary physiological measurements.
Key Words: blood flow • hemodynamics • circulation
|
Introduction
|
|---|
The no-reflow phenomenon complicates
0.6% of percutaneous coronary
interventions (PCI), the treatment of which relies, in part,
on inducing coronary hyperemia.
1–3 The most common intracoronary
agents used to induce hyperemia include adenosine, diltiazem,
verapamil, papaverine, nitroglycerin, epinephrine, nicardipine,
and sodium nitroprusside.
4–10 The coronary hyperemic and
systemic hemodynamic effects vary among and between these pharmacological
agents. Intracoronary (IC) nitroprusside (NTP) has recently
gained favor for the treatment of the no-reflow phenomenon complicating
PCI.
11 To date, however, no systematic studies have been performed
defining the specific coronary and systemic hemodynamic responses
induced by IC NTP in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.
The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the dose-related responses of IC NTP compared with IC adenosine in angiographically normal anterior descending arteries. We tested the hypothesis that IC NTP would produce similar yet sustained coronary hyperemia compared with adenosine without significant adverse systemic hemodynamic effects. These data would define the dose-related coronary responses of IC NTP and its potential as an additional agent for use during physiological assessment of coronary stenosis, in which there is a requirement for a sustained coronary hyperemia.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Patient Population
Twenty-one patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac catheterization
for chest pain syndromes were enrolled in the research study
to compare the coronary and systemic hemodynamic changes induced
by IC adenosine and IC NTP. An additional 9 patients were enrolled
to compare fractional flow reserve (FFR) determinations made
with each agent. The patients were included if they had at least
2 angiographically normal coronary arteries and stable chest
pain syndromes. The patients were excluded if they had a left
ventricular ejection fraction <35%, renal failure, significant
valvular heart disease, unstable angina, recent myocardial infarction
(within 4 days), or had congestive heart failure. The institutional
review board approved the study.
Catheterization Procedures
After diagnostic catheterization and coronary angiography performed by the standard Judkins percutaneous femoral technique, 21 patients were given a 40- to 60-U/kg intravenous bolus of heparin. A 6F guiding catheter was positioned in the left coronary artery. A 0.014-inch Doppler flow wire (Jomed Inc) was then positioned in the mid left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery to measure coronary flow velocity, as previously described.12 Heart rate, blood pressure, and coronary flow velocity were measured at baseline and after an intracoronary bolus (30 to 50 µg) of adenosine. These measurements were performed in duplicate. After returning to a new baseline, IC NTP was then administered in 3 serial doses of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 µg/kg, with a return to baseline between each dose. Continuous recordings of flow velocity, systemic blood pressure, and heart rate were obtained (Figure 1).
View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1. Trend of coronary APV for IC adenosine (ADENO) and NTP. APV scale is 0 to 80 cm/s. Time base is 0 to 270 seconds. B indicates baseline; S, search; and P, peak point of data acquisition.
|
|
In an additional 9 patients with intermediately severe coronary narrowings, 14 FFR measurements were made with a 0.014-inch pressure wire (Radi Medical Inc). FFR was calculated as distal coronary/aortic pressure at the nadir of distal pressure after hyperemia.13 Intracoronary adenosine was administered in the standard bolus fashion to calculate the FFR, followed by a repeat FFR determination with a single 0.6-µg/kg IC NTP bolus.
Coronary Angiographic Method
Coronary arteriography was performed and analyzed by means of a quantitative angiographic method (Philips DCI-DCA) for diameter of the reference vessel 5 mm distal to the site of the Doppler guide wire. In 5 patients, angiography of an unobstructive LAD was performed at rest and again 30 to 60 seconds after 0.6-µg/kg bolus NTP. Volumetric flow was computed as cross-sectional area times average peak velocity. Coronary stenosis was assessed both visually and by quantitative coronary angiography by 2 independent reviewers. The interobserver and intraobserver variabilities of quantitative angiography in our laboratory were 5% and 10%, respectively.
Coronary Flow Reserve and Resistance and FFR Calculations
Coronary flow reserve was calculated as peak hyperemic average peak velocity divided by basal average peak velocity. Coronary resistance was calculated by using the estimated volumetric flow and aortic pressure in 10 patients without LAD obstruction. Fractional flow reserve was calculated as the ratio of distal coronary pressure divided by aortic guiding pressure obtained at minimal distal pressure, which was assumed to be maximal hyperemia for each of the 2 agents studied.
Statistical Analysis
A statistical analysis was made using Student’s paired and unpaired t tests. ANOVA was used for multiple comparisons. Probability values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data are presented as mean±SD.
|
Results
|
|---|
The clinical characteristics of the 21 patients with flow responses
and 9 patients with FFR data are shown in
Table 1. There were
more men than women; 33% had diabetes, 53% had hypertension,
and 80% had 2 or more risk factors for coronary artery disease.
Systemic Hemodynamics
Intracoronary adenosine did not change heart rate or systolic blood pressure (Table 2). For the 0.3-, 0.6-, and 0.9-µg/kg doses, IC NTP decreased systolic blood pressure 15%, 18%, and 20%, respectively (P<0.003 compared with adenosine), and diastolic blood pressure 0%, 12%, and 16%, respectively (P<0.001 compared with adenosine) (Figure 2). Heart rate increased 4 bpm with IC NTP (P<0.0002) (Table 2). The time to maximal systemic blood pressure change was similar for the 3 dosages (Figure 3). However, the time to return to baseline blood pressure was longer for the 0.6- and 0.9-µg/kg NTP dosages (53±25 seconds for 0.6 µg and 49±29 seconds for 0.9 µg IC NTP, both P<0.05) (Figure 3 and Table 2).
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2. Systemic hemodynamics of IC NTP. ADENO1 and ADENO2 indicate adenosine doses; NTP, NTP2, and NTP3 indicate 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 µg/kg nitroprusside.
|
|
Coronary Hyperemia, Resistance, and Reserve
Increases in average peak velocity (APV) and coronary flow reserve were similar between IC adenosine and NTP. Maximal APV was equivalent to adenosine with all 3 doses of NTP (Figures 4 and 5
). The time to peak APV was similar between adenosine and NTP (Figure 6). Compared with adenosine, IC NTP produced a more sustained hyperemic response (Figure 6). For the 3 doses of IC NTP the time to return to baseline from peak coronary hyperemia was 49±14, 56±23, and 64±23 seconds (all P<0.05 versus adenosine, Table 2). NTP did not dilate the coronary artery, as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography. Peak coronary resistance was similarly affected by adenosine and NTP (Table 2).
FFR and NTP
To test the equivalency of IC NTP compared with adenosine-induced coronary hyperemia for intermediate coronary lesion assessment, 14 FFR measurements were made, using both medications. Hemodynamic data, including heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean aortic pressure, and mean distal coronary pressure, were obtained at baseline and peak hyperemia (Table 3). IC NTP increased heart rate 3 bpm over baseline, with a 17% and 24% fall in systolic and diastolic pressure, respectively (P<0.05), whereas adenosine modestly reduced diastolic pressure (P<0.003). When compared with adenosine, IC NTP significantly decreased systolic and diastolic pressures (P<0.01). Despite the differences in the hemodynamic effects of these agents, there were no differences in FFR calculations, with an excellent correlation coefficient achieved (r=0.97, Figure 7).
|
Discussion
|
|---|
This study shows that maximal coronary hyperemia, equivalent
to that induced by intracoronary adenosine, can be achieved
with IC NTP in doses of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 µg/kg, with
only a modest decrease in systolic pressure and without significant
tachycardia. The duration of coronary hyperemia is
25% greater
with IC NTP than adenosine. When used for coronary lesion assessment,
IC NTP yields identical FFR values compared with those obtained
with adenosine.
Comparison With Other Pharmacological Hyperemic Stimuli
Coronary hyperemia induced by NTP appears to be significantly more potent than that of IC calcium channel blockers.14,15 Rossen et al14 reported that the administration of a 125- or 250-µg/kg bolus of intravenous diltiazem followed by a 5-µg/kg per minute infusion in 8 patients reduced heart rate (77±18 to 72±17 bpm, P<0.005) and mean arterial pressure (96±11 to 86±15 mm Hg, P<0.005) while decreasing coronary flow reserve from 3.9±1.2 to 3.6±1.1 (P<0.01).5 In 10 patients treated with IC diltiazem, in dosages of 150 to 600 µg given as bolus infusions, mean arterial pressure was unchanged. The heart rate was maintained constant by atrial pacing. Coronary flow reserve was again unchanged (3.8±0.9) after IC diltiazem. Diltiazem had only a minimal effect on APV and did not influence coronary flow reserve, and the diltiazem-induced attenuation of maximal coronary dilatation probably was not a mechanism responsible for the antiischemic effects of this calcium channel blocker. Despite the limited effects on coronary blood flow, the ability to produce epicardial vasodilation and blunt coronary vasospasm without adversely altering coronary flow reserve made IC calcium channel blockers the favored agents for the treatment of the no-reflow phenomenon.15–21
Fugit et al15 examined IC nicardipine, diltiazem, and verapamil to define their effects on coronary blood flow velocity in humans. IC nicardipine (200 µg), diltiazem (1 mg), and verapamil (200 µg) were serially administered in a randomized, double-blinded fashion in minimally diseased LAD and circumflex arteries in 9 patients. Epicardial coronary diameter was determined by quantitative coronary angiography, and coronary blood flow velocity was measured with a Doppler guide wire. Nicardipine increased coronary blood flow velocity with a more prolonged (20%) duration compared with diltiazem and verapamil without affecting coronary diameter. Peak coronary flow velocity was increased 123±60% for nicardipine, 99±66% for diltiazem, and 69±27% for verapamil. Nicardipine had a longer duration of action, with 50% of its peak effect still being present at 5±2 minutes after dosing, compared with 2.7±1.3 minutes for diltiazem and 1.8±0.7 minutes for verapamil (all P<0.05). The hyperemic effect at 7 minutes was 75% of maximal blood flow for nicardipine and <15% for diltiazem and verapamil. No statistically significant differences were noted between the 3 medications with regard to changes in heart rate or arterial pressure. Two patients who received diltiazem, however, had transient type 1 second-degree atrioventricular block. This study15 suggested that compared with diltiazem and verapamil, nicardipine offered more potent and prolonged vasodilation with less risk of serious systemic side effects. None of these agents were tested against IC adenosine or nitroprusside. In this study, both adenosine and NTP hyperemia greatly exceeded that reported with any of the above calcium channel blockers.
Nitrosovasodilators: NTP Versus NTG
Using xenon-133 washout techniques, Mann et al22 studied regional myocardial blood flow in 25 patients with coronary artery disease, comparing NTP and nitroglycerin (NTG). In patients with normal coronary arteries, regional myocardial blood flow was unchanged after intravenous nitroprusside infusion but significantly decreased in patients with coronary disease with or without high-grade collateral vessels. In contrast, sublingual nitroglycerin decreased regional myocardial blood flow in normal coronary arteries but increased regional myocardial blood flow in patients with coronary artery disease with high-grade collaterals. Mean arterial pressure and rate-pressure product were comparable with both agents. Nitroprusside was postulated to affect resistance vessels as opposed to conductance vessels, thereby leading to redistribution of coronary blood flow away from ischemic zones by a coronary steal phenomenon and subsequently inducing myocardial ischemia, effects not seen with nitroglycerin. The effects of NTP on resistance vessels were similar to adenosine. No comparison with IC NTG was made. It was also of interest that both IV NTG and NTP affected epicardial vasodilation to a similar degree,23 a finding not duplicated by IC drug administration.
Feldman et al24 also compared coronary hemodynamic effects of NTP and NTG in 9 patients with severe LAD coronary artery occlusions that were filled by collaterals. Intravenous nitroprusside in doses averaging 44 µg/min (range, 19 to 76 µg/min) and NTG (average dose, 556 µg; range, 400 to 1200 µg/min) produced similar changes in heart rate during both control and drug periods (for NTP and NTG, 75±17 and 74±19 bpm, respectively). NTP and NTG decreased aortic pressure equivalently 10% to 15% (95±16 and 93±13 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.05 compared with control values). Great cardiac vein flow as a measure of LAD flow was also unchanged after NTP (70±44 to 72±4 mL/min) and NTG (71±43 to 72±40 mL/min, P=NS), with similar changes in coronary resistance for both agents. Thus, compared with NTG, NTP produced similar degrees of systemic arterial dilation with equally beneficial but minimal coronary hemodynamic effects.
In concert with Doppler flow velocity data, IC NTP increases angiographic flow velocity. Hillegass et al11 examined TIMI grade flow and TIMI frame count in 19 consecutive patients undergoing PCI complicated by no- or slow-reflow who were treated with IC NTP. Patients were given 2.2±1.6 doses of 207±178 µg of IC NTP (median, 200 µg) into the affected coronary artery or saphenous vein graft through guide catheter injection (63%) or distal balloon delivery (37%). Total nitroprusside dose per patient was 435±419 µg, with a median of 300 µg and a range of 50 to 1000 µg. IC NTP increased the percent change in angiographic flow velocity per injection of 43±73%, and 47±44% per procedure; 36±42% increase in flow for native vessels, 76±43% increase flow for vein grafts, and a 44±46% increase in flow in the presence of thrombus. Of interest, these doses of IC NTP decreased systolic and diastolic pressures from 139 to 126 mm Hg and 72 to 70 mm Hg, respectively, with a heart rate increase from 71 to 74 bpm, responses comparable to the present data. IC NTP significantly increased angiographic coronary blood flow velocity in patients with the no-reflow phenomenon without inducing significant hypotension or adverse clinical sequelae.
Mechanisms of NTP-Induced Hyperemia
Nitroprusside relaxes arterial and venous smooth muscle25 without effects on other types of smooth muscle or myocardial contractility.26,27 Vasodilatory actions of NTP may occur, in part through interactions with the sympathetic nervous system, but are not dependent on any specific adrenergic receptor or ganglion.28 Because nitroprusside directly affects vascular smooth muscle, vasodilation of diverse vascular beds occurs to similar degrees. Therefore, regional distribution of blood flow is little affected by nitroprusside in contrast to the response of drugs acting through sympathetic blockade of either 
- or ß-receptors.29 NTP is effective at inducing hyperemia as the result of its ability to preferentially vasodilate the coronary microcirculation. It is postulated that the main mechanism of action of nitroprusside is mediated through the genesis of nitric oxide that subsequently produces direct smooth muscle vasodilation.30
Limitations
Although this study is limited by a relatively small sample size, consistent physiological responses were observed. The dose responses of IC NTP and adenosine were studied serially, and the order of administration was not randomized. Because of the rapid and complete metabolism of adenosine, there is only a remote possibility of drug interaction from a preceding bolus. All hemodynamics returned to baseline before the next drug or dose was given. Adenosine combined with NTP was not examined; thus, we cannot comment on whether this combination would have produced greater hyperemia or more hypotension than when either agent was given alone. For the FFR measurements, we tested only the intermediate dose of nitroprusside (0.6 µg/kg), the dose with maximal hyperemia, and only a modest reduction of arterial pressure. A higher dose may have produced different hemodynamic responses but without effect on maximal hyperemia, which was similar for all 3 doses. Finally, the flow data were obtained in nondiseased arteries in stable patients with chest pain syndromes. None of the study patients had the no-reflow phenomenon or were undergoing intervention of the study artery. Conclusions about the hyperemic effects of these drugs in the clinical setting of no-reflow cannot be made with certainty.
Clinical Implications
These data indicate that in the doses tested, IC NTP is a safe and effective agent for the induction of maximal coronary hyperemia. NTP hyperemia is equivalent to that of adenosine, while providing a more sustained duration of the hyperemic response with only a modest decrease in systolic pressure without tachycardia. Additionally, IC NTP appears to be a useful hyperemic stimulus for determinations of FFR in patients in whom a more prolonged hyperemia is desired.
|
Acknowledgments
|
|---|
The authors acknowledge the contributions of the cardiac catheterization
team at the J. Gerard Mudd Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory
of St Louis University Hospital and Sherry Karstens and Eileen
Weiss for their assistance in preparation of the manuscript.
|
References
|
|---|
- Piana RN, Paik GY, Moscucci M, et al. Incidence and treatment of "no-reflow" after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 1994; 89: 2514–2518.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Abbo KM, Dooris M, Glazier S, et al. Features and outcome of no-reflow after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 1995; 75: 778–782.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Eeckhout E, Kern MJ. The coronary no-reflow phenomenon: a review of mechanisms and therapies. Eur Heart J. 2001; 22: 729–739.[Free Full Text]
- Kern MJ, Miller JT, Henry RL. Dose-related effects of intracoronary nitroglycerin on coronary hyperemia in patients with coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 1986; 111: 845–852.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Skelding KA, Goldstein JA, Mehta L, et al. Resolution of refractory no-reflow with intracoronary epinephrine. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent. 2002; 57: 305–309.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Assali AR, Sdringola S, Ghani M, et al. Intracoronary adenosine administered during percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction and reduction in the incidence of "no-reflow" phenomenon. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent. 2000; 51: 27–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Marzilli M, Orsini E, Marraccini P, et al. Beneficial effects of intracoronary adenosine as an adjunct to primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2000; 101: 2154–2159.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Ishihara M, Sato H, Tateishi H, et al. Attenuation of the no-reflow phenomenon after coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction with intracoronary papaverine. Am Heart J. 1996; 132: 959–963.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Rawitscher D, Levin TN, Cohen I, et al. Rapid reversal of no-reflow using abciximab after coronary device intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997; 42: 187–190.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Hanna GP, Yhip P, Fujuse K, et al. Intracoronary adenosine administered during rotational atherectomy of complex lesions in native coronary arteries reduces the incidence of no-reflow phenomenon. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent. 1999; 48: 275–278.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Hillegass WB, Dean NA, Liao L, et al. Treatment of no reflow and impaired flow with a nitric oxide donor, nitroprusside following percutaneous coronary interventions: initial human clinical experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37: 1335–1343.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kern MJ. Coronary physiology revisited: practical insights from the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Circulation. 2000; 101: 1344–1351.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334: 1703–1708.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Rossen JD, Simonetti I, Marcus ML, et al. The effect of diltiazem on coronary flow reserve in humans. Circulation. 1989; 80: 1240–1246.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Fugit MD, Rubal BJ, Donovan DJ. Effects of intracoronary nicardipine, diltiazem, and verapamil on coronary blood flow. J Invasive Cardiol. 2000; 12: 80–85.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Pomerantz RM, Kuntz RE, Diver DJ, et al. Intracoronary verapamil for the treatment of distal microvascular coronary artery spasm following PTCA. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1991; 24: 283–285.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- McIvor ME, Undemir C, Lawson J, et al. Clinical effects and utility of intracoronary diltiazem. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent. 1995; 35: 287–291.
- Gistri R, Cecchi F, Choudhury L, et al. Effect of verapamil on absolute myocardial blood flow in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol. 1994; 74: 363–369.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Kaplan BM, Benzuli KH, Kinn JW, et al. Treatment of no-reflow in degenerated saphenous vein graft interventions: comparison of intracoronary verapamil and nitroglycerine. Catheter Cardiovasc Intervent. 1996; 39: 113–118.
- Lambert CR, Pepine CJ. Effects of intravenous and intracoronary nicardipine. Am J Cardiol. 1989; 64: 8H–15H.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Singh BN, Josephson MA. Clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and hemodynamic effects of nicardipine. Am Heart J. 1990; 119: 427–434.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Mann T, Cohn PF, Holman LB, et al. Effect of nitroprusside on regional myocardial blood flow in coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1978; 57: 732–738.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Feldman RL, Day M, Hill JA, et al. Comparison of the effects of nitroprusside and nitroglycerin on coronary size. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1983; 9: 391–399.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Feldman RL, Conti CR, Pepine CJ. Comparison of coronary hemodynamic effects of nitroprusside and sublingual nitroglycerin with anterior descending coronary artery occlusion. Am J Cardiol. 1983; 52: 915–920.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Page IH, Corcoran AC, Dustan HP, et al. Cardiovascular actions of sodium nitroprusside in animals and hypertensive patients. Circulation. 1955; 11: 188–198.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Gmeiner R, Riedl J, Baumgartner H. Effect of sodium nitroprusside on myocardial performance and venous tone. Eur J Pharmacol. 1975; 31: 287–291.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Cohn JN, Burke LP. Nitroprusside. Ann Intern Med. 1979; 91: 752–757.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Verhaeghe RH, Shepherd JT. Effect of nitroprusside on smooth muscle and adrenergic nerve terminals in isolated blood vessels. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1976; 199: 269–277.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Miletich DJ, Ivankovich AD. Sodium nitroprusside and cardiovascular hemodynamics. General Int Anesthesiol Clin. 1978; 16: 31–47.
- Bates JN, Baker MT, Guerra R Jr, et al. Nitric oxide generation from nitroprusside by vascular tissue: evidence that reduction of the nitroprusside ion and cyanide loss are required. Biochem Pharmacol. 1991; 42: S157–S165.[CrossRef][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
K. Kaya, M. Oguz, A. R. Akar, S. Durdu, A. Aslan, S. Erturk, R. Tasoz, and U. Ozyurda
The effect of sodium nitroprusside infusion on renal function during reperfusion period in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective randomized clinical trial
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
February 1, 2007;
31(2):
290 - 297.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Introduction
