Comparison of amlodipine or nifedipine treatment with developing congestive heart failure: effects on myocyte contractility.

BACKGROUND: Past studies have suggested that amlodipine, a dihydropyridine L-type Ca(2+) channel antagonist, may exert useful effects in congestive heart failure (CHF). The present study examined the effects of amlodipine or nifedipine treatment in a model of developing CHF on left ventricular (LV) pump function and myocyte contractility. METHODS AND RESULTS: Pigs (25 kg) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: 1) pacing-induced CHF (rapid atrial pacing at 240 bpm) for 3 weeks (n = 9), 2) concomitant Ca(2+) channel blockade with amlodipine (1.5 mg/kg/day) and rapid pacing (n = 7), 3) concomitant Ca(2+) channel blockade with nifedipine (0.7 mg/kg twice daily) and rapid pacing (n = 7), and 4) sham controls (n = 7). LV fractional shortening fell with pacing CHF from baseline values (17% +/- 1% v 42% +/- 1%, P <.05). With rapid pacing and concomitant amlodipine treatment, LV fractional shortening increased from pacing CHF values (24% +/- 1%, P <.05) but was unchanged with concomitant nifedipine treatment (20% +/- 2%, P =.2). LV myocyte velocity of shortening, as measured by high speed videomicroscopy, was reduced with pacing CHF compared with controls (42 +/- 2 microm/s v 87 +/- 9 microm/s, P <.05), and increased from pacing CHF values with amlodipine or nifedipine treatment (62 +/- 8 microm/s, 64 +/- 4 microm/s, respectively; P <.05). Inotropic response to extracellular Ca(2+) (8 mmol/L) was reduced with pacing CHF (94 +/- 5 microm/s v 160 +/- 15 microm/s, P <.05) and increased from CHF values with amlodipine or nifedipine treatment (132 +/- 14 microm/s and 133 +/- 7 microm/s, respectively, P <.05) CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the primary mechanism for the effects of amlodipine on myocyte contractility in developing CHF is because of direct Ca(2+) channel blockade.

Characterization of patients with high-energy lower extremity trauma.

PURPOSE: (a) to report the demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, social, and vocational characteristics of patients enrolled in a study to examine outcomes after high-energy lower extremity trauma (HELET) and to compare them with the general population; (b) to determine whether characteristics of patients undergoing limb salvage versus amputation after HELET are significantly different from each other. DESIGN AND STUDY POPULATION: A prospective study of 601 patients admitted with high-energy lower extremity trauma to eight Level I trauma centers. PROCEDURES: Patients were evaluated during the initial hospitalization. They are being followed up for 24 months postinjury. Study patients are compared with the general population by using census information, population survey data, and published norms. Characteristics of patients undergoing limb salvage versus amputation are also compared. RESULTS: Most patients were male (77 percent), white (72 percent), and between the ages of twenty and forty-five years (71 percent). Seventy percent graduated from high school (compared with 86 percent nationally) (p < 0.05). One fourth lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, compared with 16 percent nationally (p < 0.05). The percentage with no health insurance (38 percent) was also higher than in the general population (20 percent) (p < .05). The percentage of heavy drinkers was over two times higher than reported nationally (p < 0.01). Study patients were slightly more neurotic and extroverted and less open to new experiences. When patient characteristics were compared for those undergoing amputation versus limb salvage, no significant differences were found among any of the variables (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, LEAP patients differ in important ways from the general population. However, the decision to amputate verus reconstruct does not appear to be significantly influenced by patient characteristics.