← Human Trials & Peer-Reviewed Studies

Usefulness of magnesium sulfate in stabilizing cardiac repolarization in heart failure secondary to ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Plain-language guide to PMID 11472698 (2001): double-blind randomized controlled trial of Magnesium Sulfate in 15 patients.

Key Facts

PMID
11472698
Journal
The American journal of cardiology
Year
2001
Study type
Randomized Controlled Trial
Authors
Ince C et al. (8 authors)
DOI
10.1016/s0002-9149(01)01630-7

What This Study Did, in Plain Language

What Was Tested

The paper reports a study of Magnesium Sulfate, published as a randomized controlled trial.

Surface electrocardiograms were recorded and digitized at entry and at 48 and 168 hours (drug washout).

The QT variability index was derived as the ratio of normalized QT-to-normalized heart rate variability.

Who Took Part

The study group was 15 patients.

The age groups tagged for this paper are adults, middle-aged adults and older adults, both men and women.

Fifteen patients (New York Heart Association class II to III; mean age 63 years) were enrolled in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

How the Study Was Run

In design terms this was a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study.

Random assignment meant chance, not the researchers, decided who got Magnesium Sulfate and who got the comparison, which limits bias.

Neither the patients nor the staff measuring them knew who was on Magnesium Sulfate, so expectations could not easily colour the readings.

Some patients received a placebo instead of Magnesium Sulfate, giving a reference point.

Repolarization stability was assessed using an automated method measuring each QT interval in a 5-minute epoch.

What Was Measured

PubMed files the paper under topics including Analysis of Variance, Anti-Arrhythmia Agents, Cardiac Output, Low, Electrocardiography, Magnesium Sulfate and Myocardial Ischemia.

What This Means in Plain Language

The paper is a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study of Magnesium Sulfate in 15 patients.

With fewer than 40 people, it is a small study, so it is better read as an early signal for further research than as a settled answer.

The publication is from 2001 (The American journal of cardiology), a journal based in United States.

More context: all human trials.

Related Pages

Source: PubMed record. This explanation is written by PeptideWhiz from the public record. For research and education only. Not medical advice; no dosing information is given.