Adverse drug reactions induced by cardiovascular drugs in outpatients

Main Article Content

Kheirollah Gholami
Shadi Ziaie
Gloria Shalviri


Product Surveillance, Postmarketing, Cardiovascular Agents, Iran


Considering increased use of cardiovascular drugs and limitations in pre-marketing trials for drug safety evaluation, post marketing evaluation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) induced by this class of medicinal products seems necessary.

Objectives: To determine the rate and seriousness of adverse reactions induced by cardiovascular drugs in outpatients. To compare sex and different age groups in developing ADRs with cardiovascular agents. To assess the relationship between frequencies of ADRs and the number of drugs used.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was done in cardiovascular clinic at a teaching hospital. All patients during an eight months period were evaluated for cardiovascular drugs induced ADRs. Patient and reaction factors were analyzed in detected ADRs. Patients with or without ADRs were compared in sex and age by using chi-square test. Assessing the relationship between frequencies of ADRs and the number of drugs used was done by using Pearson analysis.

Results: The total number of 518 patients was visited at the clinic. ADRs were detected in 105 (20.3%) patients. The most frequent ADRs were occurred in the age group of 51-60. The highest rate of ADRs was recorded to be induced by Diltiazem (23.5%) and the lowest rate with Atenolol (3%). Headache was the most frequent detected ADR (23%). Assessing the severity and preventability of ADRs revealed that 1.1% of ADRs were detected as severe and 1.9% as preventable reactions. Women significantly developed more ADRs in this study (chi square = 3.978, P<0.05). ADRs more frequently occurred with increasing age in this study (chi square = 15.871, P<0.05). With increasing the number of drugs used, the frequency of ADRs increased (Pearson=0.259, P<0.05).

Conclusion: Monitoring ADRs in patients using cardiovascular drugs is a matter of importance since this class of medicines is usually used by elderly patients with critical conditions and underlying diseases.


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 1282 | PDF Downloads 839


1. Hadi N, Rostami Gooran N. Determinant factors of medication compliance in hypertensive patients of Shiraz, Iran. Arch Iranian Med 2004;7(4):292-6.

2. Yazdanbod A, Nasseri-Moghaddam S, Malekzadeh R. Upper gastrointestinal cancer in Ardabil, North-West of Iran: A review. Arch Iranian Med 2004;7(3):173-7.

3. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients. A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200-5.

4. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Small SD, Servi D, Laffel G, Sweitzer BJ, Shea BF, Hallisey R, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995;274:29-34.

5. Levy M, Kewitz H, Altwein W, Hillebrand J, Eliakim M. Hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions: a comparative study from Jerusalam and Berlin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1980;17:25-31.

6. Zaidenstein R, Eyal S, Efrati S, Akivison L, Koren Michowitz M, Nagornov V, Golic A. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients treated with cardiovascular drugs and anticoagulants. Pharmacoepiemiol Drug Saf 2002;11:235-8.

7. Frishman WH, Brosnan BD, Grossman M, Dasgupta D, Sun DK. Adverse dermatologic effects of cardiovascular drug therapy: part III. Cardiology Rev. 2002;10(6):337-48.

8. Kanjanarat P, Winterstein AG, Johns TE, Hatton RC, Rothi RG, Segal R. Nature of preventable adverse drug events in hospitals: A literature review. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2003;60:1750-9.

9. Edwards IR. Pharmacological basis of adverse drug reactions. In: Avery’s Drug Treatment (4th edn). Adis International Limited: New Zealand, 1997: 261-299.

10. WHO collaborating center for international drug monitoring, the Uppsala Monitoring Center. Adverse reaction terminology, 1996.

11. Meyboom RHB, Hekster YA, Egberts ACG, Gribnau FWJ, Edwards IR. Causal or casual? The role of causality assessment in Pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 1997;16:374-389.

12. World Health Organization. Uppsala Monitoring Center. Safety monitoring of medicinal products, guidelines for setting up and running pharmacovigilance center, Geneva, 1996.

13. Schumock GT, Thornton JP. Focusing on the preventability of Adverse Drug Reactions. Hosp Pharm. 1992;27:538.

14. Davidson F, Haghfelt T, Gram LF, Brosen K. Adverse drug reactions and drug non-compliance as primary cause of admission to a cardiology department. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1988;34:83-6.

15. Gholami K, Shalviri G. Factors associated with preventability, predictability and severity of ADRs. Ann Pharmacother 1999;33:236-240.

16. Lee A. Adverse Drug Reactions (2nd edition). Published by the Pharmaceutical Press. 2006; 8-10.

17. Rademaker M. Do women have more adverse drug reactions? Am J Clin Dermatol 2001;2:349- 351.

18. Mjorndal T, Boman MD, Hagg S, Backstom M, Wiholm BE, Wahlin A, Dahlqvist R. Adverse drug reactions as a cause of admissions to a department of internal medicine. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11:65-72.

19. Pearson TF, Pittman DG, Longly JM, Grapes ZT, Vigliotti DJ. Mullis SR. Factors associated with preventable adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1994;51:2268-72.

Most read articles by the same author(s)