The Annals the journal of Pharmacy Technology
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 701-703.
© 1994 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mooss, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hunter, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mooss, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hunter, C.


Research Articles

Safety of esmolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy who had relative contraindications to beta-blocker therapy

AN Mooss, DE Hilleman, SM Mohiuddin, and CB Hunter

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate the safety of esmolol in 114 patients treated with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction who also had relative contraindications to beta-blockade, and the predictive value of patient tolerance to esmolol and subsequent patient tolerance of oral beta-blocker therapy. PATIENTS: One hundred and fourteen patients with myocardial infarction documented by enzyme concentrations and electrocardiographic changes who also had relative contraindications to beta-blockade. METHODS: Esmolol was initiated during acute myocardial infarction for myocardial ischemia (n = 88), hypertension (n = 13), or supraventricular tachycardia (n = 13). Relative contraindications to beta-blocker therapy included either active signs/symptoms of left ventricular dysfunction or a history of congestive heart failure (n = 40), a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma (n = 31), bradycardia (HR < 60 beats/min; n = 18), peripheral vascular disease (n = 15), or hypotension (systolic BP < 100 mm Hg; n = 14). RESULTS: During initial esmolol dose titration, 69 patients tolerated 300 micrograms/kg/min, 12 patients tolerated 200 micrograms/kg/min, 17 patients tolerated 100 micrograms/kg/min, and 16 patients tolerated 50 micrograms/kg/min. Twenty-eight patients (25 percent) developed dose-limiting adverse effects during esmolol maintenance infusions. Sixteen patients required esmolol dose reduction and 12 required esmolol discontinuation. Adverse effects reversed within 30-45 minutes following dose reduction or discontinuation. The 86 patients who tolerated esmolol infusions without dose reduction or drug discontinuation were subsequently treated with oral beta-blockers. Eleven of these patients (13 percent) developed adverse effects requiring oral beta-blocker discontinuation. Nine of these patients had tolerated only 50 micrograms/kg/min of esmolol, and the other 2 patients had tolerated only 100 micrograms/kg/min. CONCLUSIONS: Esmolol can be used safely in most patients treated with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction who have relative contraindications to beta-blockers. Tolerance to higher maintenance doses of esmolol is a good predictor of subsequent outcome with oral beta-blocker therapy.





homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1994 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.