The effect of tolterodine 4 and 8 mg on the heart rate variability in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: To investigate the potential effect of tolterodine on the human heart rate variability (HRV). Oral antimuscarinic treatment for overactive bladder might significantly alter HRV, which is an important predictor for cardiac and all-cause mortality. Yet, little information exists regarding the influence of oral antimuscarinics on the HRV. METHODS: Healthy female volunteers were randomly assigned to either placebo, tolterodine extended release (ER) 4 or 8 mg. Before and 4 h post treatment, a 10 min electrocardiogram (ECG) was recorded in supine position. Frequency domain and time domain analysis of both ECG measurements resulted in very low frequency (VLF), low frequency (LF), and high frequency (HF) data, the root mean square of differences of successive NN (= normal to normal, i.e. interval between two R-peaks) intervals (RMSSD), and the standard deviation of the NN intervals (SDNN). RESULTS: Thirty subjects (mean age: 23.7 ± 2.3 years) were investigated. Placebo caused no significant HRV changes. Tolterodine 4 mg significantly increased heart rate (HR) and significantly decreased VLF. Tolterodine 8 mg significantly decreased HF, VLF, RMSSD and SDNN and significantly increased HR and LF/HF ratio. The changes observed with 4 mg were not significantly different versus placebo, but 8 mg significantly increased LF/HF as compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of 8 mg tolterodine ER, but not 4 mg seems to reduce resting HRV versus placebo in young healthy subjects. This might be particular relevant for patients with pre-existing cardiac conditions on daily overactive bladder drug treatment and should be further investigated in larger trials.

Is there a role for tamsulosin in the treatment of distal ureteral stones of 7 mm or less? Results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Numerous randomised trials have confirmed the efficacy of medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin in patients with distal ureteral stones; however, to date, no randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have been performed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of medical expulsive therapy with tamsulosin in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients presenting with single distal ureteral stones < or = 7 mm were included in this trial. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised in a double-blind fashion to receive either tamsulosin or placebo for 21 d. The medication was discontinued after either stone expulsion or intervention. Abdominal computed tomography was performed to assess the initial and final stone status. MEASUREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS: The primary end point was the stone expulsion rate. Secondary end points were time to stone passage, the amount of analgesic required, the maximum daily pain score, safety of the therapy, and the intervention rate. RESULTS: Ten of 100 randomised patients were excluded from the analysis. No statistically significant differences in patient characteristics and stone size (median: 4.1 mm [tamsulosin arm] vs 3.8 mm [placebo arm], p=0.3) were found between the two treatment arms. The stone expulsion rate was not significantly different between the tamsulosin arm (86.7%) and the placebo arm (88.9%; p=1.0). Median time to stone passage was 7 d in the tamsulosin arm and 10 d in the placebo arm (log-rank test, p=0.36). Patients in the tamsulosin arm required significantly fewer analgesics than patients in the placebo arm (median: 3 vs 7, p=0.011). A caveat is that the exact time of stone passage was missing for 29 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin treatment does not improve the stone expulsion rate in patients with distal ureteral stones < or = 7 mm. Nevertheless, patients may benefit from a supportive analgesic effect. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT00831701.