ライフサイエンスコーパス: carvedilol

1 tentially be suppressed by carvedilol or (R)-carvedilol.

2 ailure and systolic dysfunction treated with carvedilol.

3 ontribute to the cardioprotective effects of carvedilol.

4 ad heart failure at study entry; 34 received carvedilol.

5 ling by the ryanodine stabilizer JTV-519 and carvedilol.

6 of the patients on metoprolol and in 23% on carvedilol.

7 at does not seem to occur with metoprolol or carvedilol.

8 patients were assigned to receive placebo or carvedilol.

9 h metoprolol (0.15% [0.04%]; P<.001) but not carvedilol (0.02% [0.04%]; P = .65).

10 to twice-daily dosing with placebo, low-dose carvedilol (0.2 mg/kg per dose if weight <62.5 kg or 12.

11 dose if weight > or =62.5 kg), or high-dose carvedilol (0.4 mg/kg per dose if weight <62.5 kg or 25

12 Carvedilol (1 mg/kg IV), administered 5 minutes before r

13 ial in normal subjects (single dose of 25 mg carvedilol, 100 mg metoprolol tartrate, and placebo).

14 ibernators, respectively) but increased with carvedilol (2.5 [0.9] and 3.2 [0.8], respectively; p<0.0

15 ated cardiomyopathy (DCM) were randomized to carvedilol (25 mg twice daily, Coreg, Glaxo Smith Kline,

16 e, heart rates were significantly reduced by carvedilol (308 +/- 25 versus 351 +/- 31 beats per minut

17 l medications; atenolol: 92 mg versus 68 mg; carvedilol: 44 mg versus 20 mg; metoprolol: 80 mg versus

18 In contrast, carvedilol (5 mg/kg, intraperitoneally) administered 15

19 hanged (15%); among 103 patients assigned to carvedilol, 58 improved (56%), 25 worsened (24%), and 20

20 Of the patients treated with carvedilol, 8 underwent exercise training and 8 remained

21 Insulin sensitivity improved with carvedilol (-9.1%; P = .004) but not metoprolol (-2.0%;

22 mbined risk of death or hospitalization with carvedilol (95 percent confidence interval, 13 to 33 per

23 5 percent decrease in the risk of death with carvedilol (95 percent confidence interval, 19 to 48 per

24 gned to establish the efficacy and safety of carvedilol, a "third-generation" beta -blocking agent wi

25 tion and improves its functional response to carvedilol, a beta blocker currently used in the treatme

26 holesterolemia and determined the effects of carvedilol, a beta-blocker with free radical-scavenging

27 Carvedilol, a currently prescribed nonselective beta-blo

28 Carvedilol, a new vasodilating beta-adrenoceptor antagon

29 Carvedilol, a nonselective beta-blocker, may be more eff

30 One drug, carvedilol, a nonsubtype-selective betaAR antagonist, ha

31 Carvedilol, a novel vasodilating beta-blocker with antio

32 hat the beta-arrestin-biased betaAR agonist, carvedilol, activates cellular pathways in the heart.

33 Carvedilol added to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibi

34 Metoprolol and carvedilol administered 6 d after MI for 4 wk each incre

35 Carvedilol also decreased the mean number of hospitaliza

36 Carvedilol also improved functional class, ejection frac

37 Surprisingly, the betaAR antagonist carvedilol also induced ubiquitination and lysosomal tra

38 Carvedilol also lowered the hospitalization rate (by 58%

39 Carvedilol also significantly improved several secondary

40 ction fraction < 45% (n = 49 patients; 24 on carvedilol and 25 on placebo), carvedilol showed attenua

41 cardiac events compared with placebo (18 on carvedilol and 31 on placebo, P < .02).

42 ll-cause mortality was 34% (512 of 1511) for carvedilol and 40% (600 of 1518) for metoprolol (hazard

43 th internalized beta(2)ARs was stabilized by carvedilol and did not involve beta-arrestin.

44 admission occurred in 1116 (74%) of 1511 on carvedilol and in 1160 (76%) of 1518 on metoprolol (0.94

45 ic actions of the aforementioned drugs, with carvedilol and JTV-519 (but not flecainide or riluzole)

46 the efficacy of mixed adrenoceptor blockers carvedilol and labetalol, and the atypical antipsychotic

47 We aimed to compare the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcome.

48 The impact of carvedilol and metoprolol on inappropriate therapy in he

49 of this study was to evaluate the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on the endpoint of inappropria

50 Carvedilol and metoprolol showed parallel beneficial eff

51 we examined the effects of standard doses of carvedilol and metoprolol succinate (metoprolol controll

52 ssed the relative efficacy of equal doses of carvedilol and metoprolol succinate on survival in multi

53 e to infused Ang II in patients treated with carvedilol and metoprolol, a selective beta-antagonist.

54 lol, carvedilol, and metoprolol; 2 of these, carvedilol and metoprolol, have Food and Drug Administra

55 a on the new vasodilating beta-blockers (eg, carvedilol and nebivolol).

56 Although there was no difference between the carvedilol and placebo groups in the number of patients

57 Carvedilol and propranolol had no effect on basal cAMP l

58 We also showed that racemic carvedilol and the non-beta-blocking carvedilol enantiom

59 h greater responsiveness for metoprolol than carvedilol) and beta(1)-adrenergic receptor Arg389Gly po

60 available in the United States, bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol; 2 of these, carvedilol and m

61 Carvedilol antagonized the response to exogenous norepin

62 CGP 12177 and carvedilol are potent antagonists at the catecholamine s

63 Nebivolol and carvedilol are third-generation beta-adrenoreceptor anta

64 new multiple action antihypertensive agent, carvedilol, are presented.

65 Carvedilol at 50 to 100 mg/d produced reductions in exer

66 an combined non-selective beta-blockade with carvedilol at the maximally recommended dose.

67 were randomly assigned to receive placebo or carvedilol (at doses of 6.25 to 50 mg twice daily) for u

68 Acute administration of carvedilol attenuates the vasoconstriction response to a

69 - + beta1,2,3-adrenergic receptor antagonist carvedilol before or after a thermogenic challenge of MD

70 ve), metoprolol+doxazosin (beta1/alpha1), or carvedilol (beta1/beta2/alpha1).

71 Chronic effects (25 mg carvedilol BID versus 200 mg extended-release metoprolol

72 ed that the E3 ligase MARCH2 interacted with carvedilol-bound beta(2)AR.

73 were started on one of three beta-blockers (carvedilol, bucindolol or metoprolol) and the dose was a

74 F patients have better responses not only to carvedilol but to certain other beta blockers as well.

75 a pronounced dose-dependent relationship in carvedilol, but not in metoprolol.

76 ear dose-dependent relationship was found in carvedilol, but not in metoprolol.

77 ent of the hypercholesterolemic rabbits with carvedilol, but not propranolol, significantly preserved

78 on fraction was not altered significantly by carvedilol, but stroke volume was higher at pre-hospital

79 Here we show that only alprenolol (Alp) and carvedilol (Car) induce beta(1)AR-mediated transactivati

80 cations included chlorthalidone, amlodipine, carvedilol, cholecalciferol, erythropoietin, and a phosp

81 .0%, 6.7%, and 1.1% with increasing doses of carvedilol compared with 15.5% in the placebo group, P <

82 ation was also reduced in patients receiving carvedilol compared with metoprolol (HR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0

83 y, in hibernators versus non-hibernators, on carvedilol compared with placebo.

84 with a 50% lower rate in patients receiving carvedilol compared with those receiving metoprolol.

85 Moreover, when administered 1 hr after MDMA, carvedilol completely reversed established hyperthermia

86 Here, we tested whether carvedilol could activate beta-arrestin-mediated miR mat

87 In normal subjects, carvedilol decreased forearm vascular resistance respons

88 For heart failure hospital admissions, carvedilol decreased mean length of stay by 37% (p = 0.0

89 he alpha- and beta-adrenergic blocking agent carvedilol demonstrated a significant survival advantage

90 se in cardiac beta-receptor density, whereas carvedilol did not change cardiac beta-receptor expressi

91 of the third-generation beta-blocking agent carvedilol differs considerably from second-generation c

92 nal trials are required to determine whether carvedilol differs in its effect from other agents.

93 g 16 clinically relevant betaAR antagonists, carvedilol displays a unique profile of in vitro signali

94 subjects, whereas chronic administration of carvedilol does not attenuate the vasoconstrictor respon

95 These preliminary results suggest that carvedilol does not significantly improve clinical heart

96 The change in LVEF was also influenced by carvedilol dose, etiology of heart failure, baseline hea

97 racemic carvedilol and the non-beta-blocking carvedilol enantiomer, (R)-carvedilol, suppressed sponta

98 Average carvedilol equivalent dose was 29.1+/-17.0 mg daily.

99 he BB dose at baseline was standardized with carvedilol equivalents and analyzed as a continuous vari

100 Our results suggest that carvedilol extends survival compared with metoprolol.

101 rrhythmias by beta-blockers (propranolol and carvedilol), flecainide, and the neuronal sodium-channel

102 ind, randomised trial to compare placebo and carvedilol for 6 months in individuals with stable, chro

103 placebo and 1156 patients to treatment with carvedilol for a mean period of 10.4 months, during whic

104 trials of tacrine for Alzheimer disease and carvedilol for congestive heart failure typify the use o

105 ratios of the relative risks associated with carvedilol for these two outcome variables in black as c

106 lure, which treated patients with placebo or carvedilol for up to 15 months (median, 6.5 months).

107 that: (i) The beta-AR antagonists nadolol or carvedilol, given as a single i.v. injection (acute trea

108 Patients in the carvedilol group also spent 27% fewer days in the hospit

109 found that 304 (27.2%) patients died in the carvedilol group and 1066 (36.8%) in the metoprolol grou

110 Compared with placebo, patients in the carvedilol group had a greater frequency of symptomatic

111 , all-cause mortality alone was lower in the carvedilol group than in the placebo group (116 [12%] vs

112 mproved and fewer patients felt worse in the carvedilol group than in the placebo group after 6 month

113 Fewer patients in the carvedilol group than in the placebo group withdrew beca

114 orsened outcome for patients in the combined carvedilol group vs the placebo group was 0.79 (95% CI,

115 he placebo group and 22 to 975 (2.3%) in the carvedilol group, giving a carvedilol/placebo hazard rat

116 e placebo group, as compared with 425 in the carvedilol group.

117 s in the placebo group and 130 deaths in the carvedilol group.

118 stically significant only in the much larger carvedilol group.

119 in the placebo group and 3.2 percent in the carvedilol group; the reduction in risk attributable to

120 When the three carvedilol groups were combined, the all-cause actuarial

121 -related and was present in both placebo and carvedilol groups, although the effect was statistically

122 F] units in the low-, medium-, and high-dose carvedilol groups, respectively, compared with 2 EF unit

123 d pressure response in either the placebo or carvedilol groups.

124 primary adult murine cardiomyocytes, whereas carvedilol had no efficacy.

125 t rate reductions, short-term treatment with carvedilol had superior hemodynamic and metabolic effect

126 Carvedilol has a powerful antiarrhythmic effect after AM

127 he purpose of this study was to test whether carvedilol has an antioxidant effect in humans in vivo.

128 receptor (beta2AR)-expressing HEK-293 cells, carvedilol has inverse efficacy for stimulating G(s)-dep

129 The third-generation beta-blocking agent carvedilol has substantially different effects on left v

130 Newer beta-blockers such as carvedilol have not been tested in this setting.

131 d patients entered into the Multicenter Oral Carvedilol Heart failure Assessment (MOCHA) trial, a 6-m

132 alidation and data from the Multicenter Oral Carvedilol Heart Failure Assessment Trial.

133 The 2 recent examples of the US Carvedilol Heart Failure program and the Evaluation of L

134 In the U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program, 217 black and 8

135 pitalization frequency and costs in the U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program.

136 carvedilol (medium-dose group), or 25 mg BID carvedilol (high-dose group).

137 ely, of the patients receiving metoprolol or carvedilol (HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.63 to 1.00], p = 0.050).

138 With similar efficacy to carvedilol, ICL1-9 was able to promote beta2AR phosphory

139 beta-blocker treatment, including the use of carvedilol, improves myocardial betaAR signaling and red

140 There may be a differential effect of carvedilol in children and adolescents based on ventricu

141 To prospectively evaluate the effects of carvedilol in children and adolescents with symptomatic

142 hese data suggest that long-term benefits of carvedilol in heart failure are not mediated by alpha-ad

143 diated beta-arrestin1 signaling activated by carvedilol in miR biogenesis, which may be linked, in pa

144 nown whether race influences the response to carvedilol in patients with chronic heart failure.

145 ed, multicenter, dose-response evaluation of carvedilol in patients with chronic stable symptomatic h

146 Predischarge initiation of carvedilol in stabilized patients hospitalized for HF im

147 in patients randomized to metoprolol versus carvedilol in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Tria

148 ght to compare the effects of metoprolol and carvedilol in the MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defib

149 All patients receiving either metoprolol or carvedilol in the MADIT-CRT study were identified and co

150 th beta-blockers were well tolerated; use of carvedilol in the presence of RAS blockade did not affec

151 ng may contribute to the special efficacy of carvedilol in the treatment of heart failure and may ser

152 the effectiveness of beta-blockers, such as carvedilol, in the treatment of heart failure.

153 fications to the three principal subunits of carvedilol, including the carbazole and catechol moietie

154 Carvedilol increased myocardial glucose uptake and suppr

155 Carvedilol increased renal, hepatic, and skeletal muscle

156 riluzole; a direct antiarrhythmic action of carvedilol (independent of its alpha/beta-adrenergic blo

157 strate for the first time that nebivolol and carvedilol induce relaxation of renal glomerular microva

158 A-mediated down-regulation of MARCH2 ablated carvedilol-induced ubiquitination, endocytosis, and degr

159 wn for any Galphas-coupled receptor, whereby carvedilol induces the transition of the beta1AR from a

160 Carvedilol inhibited the activation of SAPK by 53.4 +/-

161 -initiated study to evaluate if predischarge carvedilol initiation in stabilized patients hospitalize

162 Patients were randomized to carvedilol initiation pre-hospital discharge or to postd

163 patients (91.2%) randomized to predischarge carvedilol initiation were treated with a beta-blocker,

164 Carvedilol is a uniquely effective drug for the treatmen

165 Taken together, these data indicate that carvedilol is able to stabilize a receptor conformation

166 ta1-selective, the third-generation compound carvedilol is beta-nonselective, with ancillary pharmaco

167 non-selective beta- and alpha-blockade with carvedilol is well tolerated in patients with COPD who d

168 heart failure outcomes in patients receiving carvedilol (low- and high-dose combined) vs placebo.

169 receive treatment with placebo, 6.25 mg BID carvedilol (low-dose group), 12.5 mg BID carvedilol (med

170 As compared with placebo, carvedilol lowered the risk of death from any cause or h

171 In response to beta blocker therapy with carvedilol, MARCH2 E3 ligase activity regulates cell sur

172 Combined treatment with enalapril and carvedilol may prevent LVSD in patients with malignant h

173 Therefore, carvedilol may reduce the risk of thromboembolic events

174 Furthermore, beta-blocker carvedilol-mediated beta-arrestin-dependent ERK activati

175 BID carvedilol (low-dose group), 12.5 mg BID carvedilol (medium-dose group), or 25 mg BID carvedilol

176 heart failure treated with beta-AR blockers (carvedilol, metoprolol, or atenolol), 9 from patients wi

177 d bioassay of ca. 100 compounds based on the carvedilol motif to identify features that correlate wit

178 double-blind) to either placebo (n = 145) or carvedilol (n = 133; target dose, 25 to 50 mg BID) for 6

179 In subjects randomized to treatment with carvedilol (n = 231), LVEF improved 9.5 +/- 0.9 EF units

180 inhibitors, were randomized double-blind to carvedilol (n = 232) or placebo (n = 134) and followed u

181 assigned to a group receiving enalapril and carvedilol (n = 45) or to a control group (n = 45).

182 ndomized to receive a 6.25- to 25-mg dose of carvedilol (n = 498) or 50- to 200-mg dose of metoprolol

183 nd treatment with either placebo (n=1133) or carvedilol (n=1156) for an average of 10.4 months.

184 ion of </=40% were randomly assigned 6.25 mg carvedilol (n=975) or placebo (n=984).

185 The effects of carvedilol on ejection fraction, clinical status, and ma

186 Some of the effect of carvedilol on LVEF might be mediated by improved functio

187 We investigated the long-term efficacy of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with l

188 to the beneficial effects of metoprolol and carvedilol on T-tubule remodeling.

189 to explore whether the protective effects of carvedilol on the ischemic myocardium include inhibition

190 AF, which could potentially be suppressed by carvedilol or (R)-carvedilol.

191 mains controversial, even in the wake of the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET).

192 mized to metoprolol versus carvedilol in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET).

193 ly substantial comparative trial to date-the Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial-has compared car

194 All subjects were treated with carvedilol or metoprolol for at least 3 months.

195 tor were randomized to equipotent dosages of carvedilol or metoprolol for two 6-wk periods.

196 ure were randomly assigned to receive either carvedilol or metoprolol in addition to standard therapy

197 tween all-cause mortality and treatment with carvedilol or metoprolol succinate was observed after ei

198 chronic heart failure who were using either carvedilol or metoprolol succinate were identified in th

199 wo concurrent placebo-controlled trials with carvedilol or metoprolol that had common substudies focu

200 , nonselective beta-adrenergic blockade with carvedilol or propranolol does not prevent patients with

201 d 23 patients with CHF who were treated with carvedilol or propranolol in addition to ACE inhibitors,

202 tion of trained patients treated with either carvedilol or propranolol increased from 12.9 +/- 1.4 to

203 gh-cholesterol diet supplemented with either carvedilol or propranolol.

204 l benefit was greater for trials of the drug carvedilol (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.81) than for nonca

205 ergic-receptor blocking agent (metoprolol or carvedilol) or placebo.

206 The superiority of carvedilol over metoprolol tartrate in one clinical tria

207 ischaemia had a greater increase in LVEF on carvedilol (p=0.0002 and p=0.009, respectively).

208 from 19+/-8.5% to 25+/-9.9% (P<0.0005) with carvedilol (P=NS between groups).

209 curred in 21% of placebo patients and 11% of carvedilol patients, reflecting a 48% (P = .008) reducti

210 975 (2.3%) in the carvedilol group, giving a carvedilol/placebo hazard ratio (HR) of 0.41 (95% confid

211 rs were equally randomized to the SCS, MEDS (carvedilol plus ramipril 2.5 mg PO QD), SCS plus MEDS (c

212 a placebo-controlled multicenter trial, the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in Left Ventric

213 Carvedilol prevented beta(2)AR recycling, blocked recrui

214 Taken together, these results suggest that carvedilol prevents myocardial ischemia/reperfusion-indu

215 ate heart failure from systolic dysfunction, carvedilol produced dose-related improvements in LV func

216 Carvedilol produced significant reductions in heart rate

217 iciency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS II), and the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival St

218 vention Trial in Heart Failure), COPERNICUS (Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival tr

219 Carvedilol reduced all-cause mortality but had no effect

220 ischemic cardiomyocytes, and treatment with carvedilol reduced both the intensity of staining as wel

221 Among hospitalized patients, carvedilol reduced severity of illness during hospital a

222 Carvedilol reduced the combined risk of death or hospita

223 ed by left-ventricular systolic dysfunction, carvedilol reduced the frequency of all-cause and cardio

224 Compared with placebo, carvedilol reduced the risk of hospitalization for any r

225 Carvedilol reduced the risk of worsening heart failure (

226 Carvedilol reduces disease progression in heart failure,

227 ts with heart failure have demonstrated that carvedilol reduces morbidity and mortality and inhibits

228 In addition, treatment with carvedilol resulted in a lower von Willebrand factor tha

229 Compared with metoprolol, carvedilol resulted in greater reduction of sympathetic

230 Carvedilol selectively lowered coronary sinus norepineph

231 tients; 24 on carvedilol and 25 on placebo), carvedilol showed attenuation of remodeling.

232 (ii) Chronic treatment with nadolol or carvedilol significantly increased beta-AR densities in

233 We conclude that carvedilol significantly inhibits ROS generation by leuk

234 We hypothesized that nebivolol and carvedilol stimulate NO release from microvascular endot

235 Some betaAR ligands, such as carvedilol, stimulate betaAR signaling preferentially th

236 non-beta-blocking carvedilol enantiomer, (R)-carvedilol, suppressed spontaneous Ca(2+) oscillations i

237 Carvedilol suppresses atrial as well as ventricular arrh

238 with chronic heart failure to treatment with carvedilol (target dose 25 mg twice daily) and 1518 to m

239 on during treatment was less frequent in the carvedilol than in the placebo group.

240 ignificantly higher in patients treated with carvedilol than in those treated with metoprolol (20 [ra

241 (123)I-MIBG cardiac washout was lower during carvedilol than metoprolol treatment (12.9% +/- 3.9% vs.

242 tal myocardial infarction were also lower on carvedilol than on placebo.

243 n to microalbuminuria was less frequent with carvedilol than with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds rat

244 sociated with higher mortality compared with carvedilol therapy (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence i

245 There were no adverse effects of carvedilol therapy and no excess events in this subgroup

246 n for 2 hours 3 times a day), medicine (MED; carvedilol therapy at 12.5 mg PO BID), or control (CTRL;

247 ment Predischarge: Process for Assessment of Carvedilol Therapy in Heart Failure (IMPACT-HF) trial wa

248 We studied the effect of carvedilol therapy on myocardial FFA and glucose use in

249 In addition, as compared with placebo, carvedilol therapy was accompanied by a 27 percent reduc

250 With carvedilol, there was a parallel decline from 4.7+/-1.4

251 esized that the nonselective beta-antagonist carvedilol, through its alpha1-adrenergic blocking prope

252 rest or on minimal exertion, the addition of carvedilol to conventional therapy ameliorates the sever

253 ht to evaluate the efficacy of enalapril and carvedilol to prevent chemotherapy-induced left ventricu

254 However, carvedilol-treated dogs showed significantly greater inc

255 tly affect survival in metoprolol-treated or carvedilol-treated HF patients in this study.

256 Carvedilol-treated patients were also less likely than p

257 vehicle-treated rabbits but only one of six carvedilol-treated rabbits (P<.01).

258 tuarial mortality risk was lowered by 73% in carvedilol-treated subjects (P < .001).

259 h improvement in ventricular function during carvedilol treatment in heart failure patients.

260 Carvedilol treatment in patients with heart failure resu

261 After carvedilol treatment, the mean myocardial uptake rate fo

262 ng echocardiograms before and 3 months after carvedilol treatment.

263 We administered 3.125 mg of carvedilol twice daily to normal subjects for 1 week.

264 Here we show that propranolol and carvedilol, two beta-blocker drugs that inhibit beta-adr

265 In human cells and mouse hearts, carvedilol upregulates a subset of mature and pre-miRs,

266 l and placebo (isometric handgrip -3.5 U for carvedilol versus -1.2 U for metoprolol and -2.2 U for p

267 o, P=0.15; cold pressor test 3.1+/-8.9 U for carvedilol versus 9.0+/-2.7 U for metoprolol and 8.2+/-5

268 The effects of carvedilol versus metoprolol were compared in two concur

269 nd long-term (6 months, oral) treatment with carvedilol versus placebo in 151 consecutive patients wi

270 hat drugs targeting these receptors, such as carvedilol, warrant further investigation as novel thera

271 ic blocking or other ancillary properties of carvedilol warrants further investigation.

272 group; the reduction in risk attributable to carvedilol was 65 percent (95 percent confidence interva

273 partial agonist activity at either receptor; carvedilol was a genotype-independent neutral antagonist

274 The benefit of carvedilol was apparent and of similar magnitude in both

275 class I and II and with wide QRS complexes, carvedilol was associated with a 30% reduction in hospit

276 plantable cardioverter-defibrillator device, carvedilol was associated with a 36% lower rate of inapp

277 In addition, treatment with carvedilol was associated with a significant increase in

278 Treatment with carvedilol was associated with a significantly decreased

279 Treatment with carvedilol was associated with a significantly decreased

280 However, carvedilol was associated with dose-related improvements

281 Compared with metoprolol, carvedilol was associated with fewer days lost to death,

282 Compared with metoprolol, carvedilol was associated with greater improvement in Ne

283 The antiarrhythmic effect of carvedilol was examined in a placebo-controlled multicen

284 Carvedilol was found to be safe, and it significantly re

285 In primary prophylaxis of EVH, carvedilol was found to reduce the rate of initial bleed

286 Carvedilol was modestly effective in attenuating MDMA-in

287 This effect of carvedilol was not influenced by sex, age, race, cause o

288 of hibernator status on response of LVEF to carvedilol was not significant (0.7 [-2.2 to 3.5]; p=0.6

289 A novel beneficial and synergistic effect of carvedilol was seen in patients with CRT-D and LBBB.

290 to Ang II infusion in patients treated with carvedilol was significantly lower than in patients trea

291 Carvedilol was started in week 2 post MR induction and g

292 ese measures of outcome and clinical status, carvedilol was superior to placebo within each racial co

293 The maximum of NO release for nebivolol and carvedilol was very similar (188+/-14 and 226+/-17, resp

294 Carvedilol was well tolerated and safe to use in patient

295 result, estimated inpatient care costs with carvedilol were 57% lower for cardiovascular admissions

296 Metoprolol and carvedilol were well tolerated, and both patient groups

297 Carvedilol, when added to standard therapy, including an

298 The previously reported benefits of carvedilol with regard to morbidity and mortality in pat

299 ol or Metoprolol European Trial-has compared carvedilol with short-acting metoprolol tartrate at diff

300 ed that alpha-adrenergic-blocking effects of carvedilol would limit vasoconstriction in response to a