The Journal of emergency medicine · 2024
Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Nicardipine Versus Clevidipine for Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Crisis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Storey Cortney, Pouliot Jonathon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hypertensive crisis is an acute increase in blood pressure >180/120 mm Hg. A titratable antihypertensive agent is preferred to lower blood pressure acutely in a controlled way and prevent an abrupt overcorrection. Nicardipine and clevidipine are both dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers that provide unique benefits for blood pressure control.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of nicardipine or clevidipine for blood pressure control in the setting of hypertensive crisis.
METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients received either nicardipine or clevidipine for the treatment of hypertensive crisis. The primary outcome was achievement of 25% reduction in mean arterial pressure at 1 h. The secondary outcome was achievement of a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of <160 mm Hg at 2-6 h from the start of the infusion.
RESULTS: This study included a total of 156 patients, 74 in the nicardipine group and 82 in the clevidipine group. The SBP on admission and at the start of the infusion were similar between groups. There was no difference between groups in achieving a 25% reduction in mean arterial pressure at 1 h. Nicardipine achieved an SBP goal of <160 mm Hg at 2-6 h significantly more often than the clevidipine group (89.2% vs. 73.2%; p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between agents for initial blood pressure control in the treatment of hypertensive crisis. Nicardipine showed more sustained SBP control, with a lower risk of rebound hypertension and a significant cost savings compared with clevidipine.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of nicardipine or clevidipine for blood pressure control in the setting of hypertensive crisis.
METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients received either nicardipine or clevidipine for the treatment of hypertensive crisis. The primary outcome was achievement of 25% reduction in mean arterial pressure at 1 h. The secondary outcome was achievement of a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of <160 mm Hg at 2-6 h from the start of the infusion.
RESULTS: This study included a total of 156 patients, 74 in the nicardipine group and 82 in the clevidipine group. The SBP on admission and at the start of the infusion were similar between groups. There was no difference between groups in achieving a 25% reduction in mean arterial pressure at 1 h. Nicardipine achieved an SBP goal of <160 mm Hg at 2-6 h significantly more often than the clevidipine group (89.2% vs. 73.2%; p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between agents for initial blood pressure control in the treatment of hypertensive crisis. Nicardipine showed more sustained SBP control, with a lower risk of rebound hypertension and a significant cost savings compared with clevidipine.