Advertisment ACS-IndiaSymposium
Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results
  Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Search Article 
Advanced search 
 Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 46-52

Dipyridamole in heart failure due to dilated cardiomyopathy: A pilot study

1 Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, Pisa, Italy
2 Second Department of Medicine and Cardiology Center, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
3 Second Department of Pulmonology, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
4 Second Department of Pulmonology, University of Szeged, Szeged, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Francesco Stea
Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, Via Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa (LI)
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0976-9234.177076

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Dipyridamole (DIP) might be beneficial in heart failure (HF). It has been reported to improve symptoms in observational, small-scale studies. The PRoFESS study for secondary prevention of stroke observed a reduction in the risk of HF with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) plus DIP in comparison with clopidogrel. The present pilot study was aimed at assessing the clinical effects of DIP and ASA in dilated cardiomyopathy. Materials and Methods: Nineteen outpatients with nonischemic HF, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II, ejection fraction (EF) <40%, were randomized to ASA 25 mg, or ASA 25 mg plus DIP 200 mg (ASA + DIP), twice daily. They were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months for symptoms, EF, and exercise capacity through 6-min walk test. Results: Eleven subjects were in the ASA group and 8 in the ASA + DIP. Dyspnea improved, without differences between the two arms: n = 6/5/0/0 for NYHA I/II/III/IV in ASA, n = 4/3/1/0 in ASA + DIP. EF increased in both groups (ASA: from 34 [28-35%] to 40 [32-46%]; ASA + DIP from 32.5 [25.75-34%] to 36 [31.5-46%]). No change in meters walked or points in the Borg scale was observed. In a similar population, an adequately powered study would need to recruit 38 subjects. Conclusion: The study, although underpowered, did not show any difference between the two treatment strategies. While this appears in contrast with previous studies, the strict inclusion criteria, the randomized, double-blind design, and the clinical end-points give strength to our findings. A properly sized trial would be within the capabilities of a single center.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded292    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal