Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. 2010 Jul 1;2010:134564. doi: 10.4061/2010/134564

Table 3.

Summary of trials highlighting the anti-atherosclerotic effects of antioxidants.

Study	N	Medication	Imaging modality	Follow-up (months)	Outcome	Result	P-value
SECURE [16]	732	Vitamin E versus Placebo	B-mode ultrasound	52	CIMT (mm/yr)	0.0180 versus 0.0174	NS

ASAP [57]	520	Vitamin E + C	B-ultrasound	72	CIMT (%)	−26	.014^¶

Fang et al. [59]	40	Vitamin E + C versus Placebo	IVUS	12	Δ average intimal index^† (%)	+0.8 versus +8	.008

VEAPS [56]	353	Vitamin E versus Placebo	B-ultrasound	36	Δ CIMT (mm/yr)	+0.0040 ± 0.0007 versus +0.0023 ± 0.0007	.08

Brown et al. [35]	160	Antioxidants versus Placebo	QCA	36	% diameter stenosis	+1.8 ± 4.2 versus +3.9 ± 5.2	NS
	160	Simvastatin + Niacin + antioxidants versus placebo	QCA	36	% diameter stenosis	+0.7 ± 3.2 versus +3.9 ± 5.2	<.005

Nunes et al. [60]	54	Probucol versus placebo	IVUS	6	Intimal hyperplasia volume (mm³)	40.3 ± 26.7 versus 44.8 ± 28.3	.72
			IVUS		% luminal volume obstruction	30.4 ± 14.5 versus 30.7 ± 17.2	.86
			QCA		Restenosis rate (%)	19.4 versus 18.5	.75

Tardif et al. [61]	305	Probucol versus placebo	IVUS	6	Luminal area @ PCI (mm²)	3.69 ± 2.69 versus 2.66 ± 1.58	<.05
Tardif et al. [61]	305	Succinobuccol (AGI-1067) versus placebo	IVUS	6	Luminal area @ PCI (mm²)	3.36 ± 2.12 versus 2.66 ± 1.58	<.05

Tardif et al. [62]	232	280 mg Succinobuccol (AGI-1067) versus placebo	IVUS	12	Plaque volume (mm³)	−4.0; P =.001^¶ versus −0.7; P = .85^¶	.12^‡

^¶ Baseline versus Followup

^† intimal index (plaque area/vessel area)

^‡ difference between groups