{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016556291390728478, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005960264900662252, 'mean_word_length': 5.806306306306307, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Comparative clinical studies of myocardial blood flow in coronary heart disease with two nifedipine preparations].

Clinical, ergometric and scintigraphic examinations were performed before and after oral administration of a commercially available nifedipine preparation used as a standard (reference preparation; dosage: 3 x 10 mg/d) in 21 patients with angiographically verified coronary artery disease. In an open comparison study the same parameters were investigated after a 4 week course of a different nifedipine preparation as a test preparation (Corotrend; dosage: 3 x 10 mg/d). The study was performed in order to determine whether there were quantitative differences in myocardial microperfusion when different galenical preparations of nifedipine were used. There were no statistically significant differences between the two nifedipine preparations in the test parameters recorded. Both substances were associated with highly significant increases in microperfusion as compared to findings in the washout phase. Clinical effects on incidence of chest pain and on reductions in blood pressure were comparable. Patients demonstrated slightly better exercise tolerance with the reference agent, and computerised impulse-rate analysis of the tomoscintigrams demonstrated somewhat better microperfusion with this drug, though the differences between the two agents did not attain statistical significance. As the result of this analysis the two drugs would appear to be equivalent in clinical potency.