ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Postmortem amlodipine concentrations and postmortem redistribution: a retrospective study of 33 cases.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of the studyAmlodipine is a calcium channel blocker used to treat cardiac conditions. At toxic doses, amlodipine can cause death by cardiogenic shock, tissue hypoperfusion and target organ damage. Its pharmacokinetic properties suggest that post-mortem redistribution is possible, precluding interpretation based on living data (plasma concentrations range from 3 to 15 µg/L). Our objective was to determine potentially fatal and non-fatal postmortem amlodipine concentrations.
methodThirty-three autopsy cases involving postmortem jugular vein blood amlodipine quantification were retrospectively reviewed and classified into two groups based on autopsy findings, regardless of amlodipine dosage results: amlodipine-related or possibly related deaths (G1) and amlodipine-unrelated deaths (G2).Amlodipine concentrations were determined using a validated LC-HRMS method. Groups were compared using a two-tailed Student's t-test.
resultsOf the 33 cases, 16 were classified G1 (median amlodipine concentration 115 µg/L [1st quartile: 85.5; 3rd quartile: 255.5]) and 17 were classified G2 (median amlodipine concentration 41 µg/L [1st quartile: 31; 3rd quartile: 87]) with a statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.01**). In post mortem whole blood, analyzed by LC-HRMS, concentrations below 90 µg/L (87 µg/L according to our results) appear compatible with non-toxic exposure, whereas concentrations above 250-300 µg/L (255.5 µg/L according to our results) may indicate toxicity contributing to death. In G2, the median amlodipine concentration was 41 µg/L, which is 2.73 times higher than therapeutic concentrations observed in living plasma. The blood/plasma ratio for amlodipine (described as 1.48 or 1.7 depending on the respective reference) does not fully explain the observed difference in concentration in whole blood. Autopsy results involving increased amlodipine concentrations have been described in the literature and may point to the phenomenon of post-mortem redistribution.
conclusionPostmortem redistribution significantly increases blood amlodipine concentrations compared with therapeutic levels in living subjects, making direct extrapolation unreliable. The distinction between non-toxic and potentially toxic concentrations is essential for forensic interpretation. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are warranted to establish validated postmortem reference ranges for this medication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42749756What 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.