ArticleThe Korean journal of internal medicine2021
Comparison of calcium-channel blockers for long-term clinical outcomes in patients with vasospastic angina.
Article in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shedding Light on Treatment Options for Coronary Vasomotor Disorders: A Systematic Review.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2024Pooled it
- Pharmacokinetic Comparison of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Candesartan Cilexetil/Amlodipine/Atorvastatin Versus Co-administration of Individual Formulations in Healthy Participants.Advances in therapy · 2024Trial
- Blood Pressure and Angina-Related Health Status During Benidipine Therapy: A Multicenter Real-World Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology Expert Consensus for the Management of Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Part 1.Korean circulation journal · 2026Review
- Coronary artery spasm in cardiac arrest survivors.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Review
- Vasospastic angina: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and emerging therapeutic approaches.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- Current Evidence-Based Treatment of Angina With Nonobstructive Coronary Arteries (ANOCA).Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Management of Coronary Artery Spasm.European cardiology · 2023Review
- Current Evidence on Long-Term Prognostic Factors in Vasospastic Angina.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- A new perspective on calcium channel blockers in vasospastic angina.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2021Article
- The Smoking Paradox: A Twist in the Tale of Vasospastic Angina.Journal of vascular medicine & surgery · 2021Article
- Vasospastic angina: a review on diagnostic approach and management.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsCalcium channel blockers (CCBs) are the most widely prescribed medication for patients with vasospastic angina (VA). However, few studies have compared the prognosis of VA patients who are prescribed different CCBs.
methodsWe enrolled 2,960 patients who received provocation test prospectively in 11 university hospitals in Korea. We divided 1,586 patients received four major CCBs into two groups: a first generation CCB (diltiazem and nifedipine) group and a second generation CCB (amlodipine and benidipine) group. Primary outcome was time to events of composite of death from any cause, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and symptomatic arrhythmia during 3-year follow-up. We also compared the effect of each CCB on the control of angina symptoms.
resultsThere was no difference of the primary outcome among the two groups with a cumulative incidence rate of 5.4%, 2.9%, and a person-month incidence rate of 2.33 and 1.26, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 1.17; p = 0.120, as reference with the 1st generation CCBs). The incidence of ACS was significantly lower in 2nd generation CCBs group with a person-month incidence rate of 1.66 vs. 0.35 (HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.89; p = 0.034). Use of benidipine showed a significant better control of angina symptom compared with diltiazem for 3 years (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.32; p < 0.0001 at 3rd year).
conclusionThe first and second generation CCB groups did not differ in terms of composite outcome occurrence. However, the ACS incidence rate was significantly lower in the users of the 2nd generation CCBs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.