Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of pimobendan by comparing it with ramipril over a six-month period in dogs with mild to moderate heart failure (HF) caused by myxomatous mitral valve disease (MMVD).
Methods: This was a prospective randomised, single-blind, parallel-group trial. Client-owned dogs (n = 43) with mild to moderate HF caused by MMVD were randomly assigned to one of two groups, which received either pimobendan (P dogs) or ramipril (R dogs) for six months. The outcome measures studied were: adverse HF outcome, defined as failure to complete the trial as a direct consequence of HF; maximum furosemide dose (mg/kg/day) administered during the study period; and any requirement for additional visits to the clinic as a direct consequence of HF.
Results: Treatment with pimobendan was well tolerated compared with treatment with ramipril. P dogs were 25 per cent as likely as R dogs to have an adverse HF outcome (odds ratio 4.09, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.03 to 16.3, P = 0.046).
Clinical Significance: R dogs had a higher overall score and thus may have had more advanced disease than P dogs at baseline (P = 0.04). These results should be interpreted cautiously but such a high odds ratio warrants further investigation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2005.tb00302.x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!