Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 343

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study to compare the efficacy and safety of chronic nifedipine therapy with that of isosorbide dinitrate and their combination in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure.

Open access
Elkayam, U, Amin, J, Mehra, A, Vasquez, J, Weber, L, Rahimtoola, S H·1990·Circulation

Abstract

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study to compare the efficacy and safety of vasodilation with the calcium entry blocker nifedipine with that of isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) and their combination as treatment for heart failure. Twenty-eight patients with New York Heart Association Functional class II or III chronic heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction were studied. All patients were maintained on a constant dose of digitalis and diuretics throughout the study. Eight weeks of therapy with nifedipine alone or in combination with ISDN resulted in a significantly higher incidence of heart failure deterioration necessitating hospitalizations and/or additional diuretics. Twenty-four percent of patients required hospitalization during nifedipine therapy and 26% required hospitalization during nifedipine-ISDN combination therapy in comparison to 0% requiring hospitalization during ISDN therapy alone. The total number of heart failure-worsening episodes was nine among patients on nifedipine, three among patients on ISDN (p less than 0.09 versus nifedipine), and 21 among patients on nifedipine-ISDN combination (p less than 0.001 versus nifedipine, p less than 0.0001 versus ISDN). Premature discontinuation of drug administration due to clinical deterioration or other side effects occurred in 29% of patients during nifedipine therapy, 5% of patients during ISDN therapy (p = 0.05 versus nifedipine), and 19% of patients during the combination therapy. A comparison of eight patients who demonstrated clinical deterioration on nifedipine with the remainder of the patients demonstrated no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction (0.24 +/- 0.06 versus 0.23 +/- 0.07) or maximal oxygen uptake during exercise (13 +/- 3 versus 14 +/- 2 ml/kg/min).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.82.6.1954

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 343

Metadata

Authors
Elkayam, U., Amin, J., Mehra, A., Vasquez, J., Weber, L., & Rahimtoola, S. H.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1990-12
Volume
82
Issue
6
Pages
1954-1961
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2029649344
Cited by
343
References
0
FWCI
12.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study to compare the efficacy and safety of chronic nifedipine therapy with that of isosorbide dinitrate and their combination in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.82.6.1954
The paper
Elkayam, U., Amin, J., Mehra, A., Vasquez, J., Weber, L., & Rahimtoola, S. H. (1990). A prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study to compare the efficacy and safety of chronic nifedipine therapy with that of isosorbide dinitrate and their combination in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.82.6.1954

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.