Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 442

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparative Hemodynamic, Left Ventricular Functional, and Antiadrenergic Effects of Chronic Treatment With Metoprolol Versus Carvedilol in the Failing Heart

Gilbert, Edward M., Abraham, William T., Olsen, Stephanie, Hattler, Brack, White, Michel, Mealy, Patrice, Larrabee, Patti, Bristow, Michael R.·1996·Circulation

Abstract

Background The basic pharmacology of the third-generation β-blocking agent carvedilol differs considerably from second-generation compounds such as metoprolol. Moreover, carvedilol may produce different, ie, more favorable, clinical effects in chronic heart failure. For these reasons, we compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on adrenergic activity, receptor expression, degree of clinical β-blockade, hemodynamics, and left ventricular function in patients with mild or moderate chronic heart failure. Methods and Results The effects of carvedilol versus metoprolol were compared in two concurrent placebo-controlled trials with carvedilol or metoprolol that had common substudies focused on adrenergic, hemodynamic, and left ventricular functional measurements. All subjects in the substudies had chronic heart failure resulting from idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Carvedilol at 50 to 100 mg/d produced reductions in exercise heart rate that were similar to metoprolol at 125 to 150 mg/d, indicating comparable degrees of β-blockade. Compared with metoprolol, carvedilol was associated with greater improvement in New York Heart Association functional class. Although there were no significant differences in hemodynamic effects between the carvedilol and metoprolol active-treatment groups, carvedilol tended to produce relatively greater improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction, stroke volume, and stroke work compared with changes in the respective placebo groups. Carvedilol selectively lowered coronary sinus norepinephrine levels, an index of cardiac adrenergic activity, whereas metoprolol did not lower coronary sinus norepinephrine and actually increased central venous norepinephrine levels. Finally, metoprolol was associated with an increase in cardiac β-receptor density, whereas carvedilol did not change cardiac β-receptor expression. Conclusions The third-generation β-blocking agent carvedilol has substantially different effects on left ventricular function, hemodynamics, adrenergic activity, and β-receptor expression than does the second-generation compound metoprolol. Some or all of these differences may explain the apparent differences in clinical results between the two compounds.

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.94.11.2817

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 442

Metadata

Authors
Gilbert, E. M., Abraham, W. T., Olsen, S., Hattler, B., White, M., Mealy, P., Larrabee, P., & Bristow, M. R.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1996-12
Volume
94
Issue
11
Pages
2817-2825
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W1981731045
Cited by
442
References
0
FWCI
19.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Comparative Hemodynamic, Left Ventricular Functional, and Antiadrenergic Effects of Chronic Treatment With Metoprolol Versus Carvedilol in the Failing Heart. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.94.11.2817
The paper
Gilbert, E. M., Abraham, W. T., Olsen, S., Hattler, B., White, M., Mealy, P., Larrabee, P., & Bristow, M. R. (1996). Comparative Hemodynamic, Left Ventricular Functional, and Antiadrenergic Effects of Chronic Treatment With Metoprolol Versus Carvedilol in the Failing Heart. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.94.11.2817

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.