In some countries, intravenous (IV) magnesium is administered to heart attack patients in order to limit damage to the heart muscle, prevent serious arrhythmias and reduce the risk of death. Several small trials appeared to support the practice. But the authors of this review found that other trials went unpublished once they produced unfavorable results. A controversy erupted in 1995, when a large well-designed trial with 58,050 participants did not demonstrate any beneficial effect to IV magnesium, contradicting earlier meta-analyses of the smaller trials. This review includes 26 clinical trials that had randomly assigned heart attack patients to receive either IV magnesium or an inactive substance (placebo). Their results were mixed: IV magnesium reduced the incidence of serious arrhythmias, but this treatment also increased the incidence of profound hypotension, bradycardia and flushing. However, any apparent beneficial effects of magnesium may simply reflect various biases in these trials. Additionally, there was a lack of uniformity in these trials in terms of dosage and the timing of the IV magnesium regimen, which in some trials also included anti-clotting drugs. The evidence produced by this review does not support continued use of IV magnesium. Other effective treatments (aspirin, beta-blockers) should be used to treat heart attack.
Intravenous magnesium for acute myocardial infarction
Published Online:
January 21, 2009
More like this
- Hyperbaric oxygen may reduce the risk of dying, the time to pain relief and the chance of adverse heart events in people with heart attack and unstable angina
- Low molecular weight heparins reduce the number of heart attacks and cause fewer complications after an acute coronary syndrome compared to unfractionated heparin
- Early invasive versus conservative strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era
- Routine use of oxygen in people who have had a heart attack
- Bed rest for acute uncomplicated myocardial infarction
