Many activities of magnesium have justified randomized con trolled tri
als of its role in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which have shown
reduction of short term mortality by 25% to over 50%. The Fourth Inte
rnational Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS-4) megastudy failed to confi
rm these findings, and, based on analysis of pooled findings, it was c
oncluded that magnesium has no place in treatment of AMI. The fixed ef
fects statistical model employed in ISIS-4 for evaluation of pooled da
ta is inappropriate because the studies were not homogeneous. Among th
e differences between the earlier studies and the megatrial, the most
significant was the time at which magnesium infusions were started rel
ative to the time of reperfusion. Animal studies have shown that magne
sium is protective only if present before or at the time of reperfusio
n. Unlike in earlier trials, in which magnesium infusions were started
soon after the ischemic event or simultaneously with a lyric agent, i
n ISIS-4 magnesium treatment was withheld until after iatrogenic or sp
ontaneous reperfusion occured. This can explain poor therapeutic resul
ts in ISIS-4, but not the hypotension and bradycardia encountered in a
minority of patients in that study. Dosage difference alone cannot ex
plain this, even though the amounts given in the small studies were 40
% to 25% less than that in ISIS-4, because the dose used in the Second
Leicester Intravenous Magnesium Intervention Trial (LIMIT-2) was only
slightly lower than that used in ISIS-4. Administration of high dose
magnesium with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (which spare
s magnesium) or the vasodilating oral nitrate in arms of ISIS-4 may ha
ve contributed to adverse effects of hypermagnesemia. Also, the very l
ow mortality rate of controls in ISIS-4 suggests that the patients may
have been at relatively low risk, and it is in high risk patients tha
t magnesium has been shown to be most effective. A large scale study o
f magnesium in such patients is being started.