Journal of pharmacy practice · 2020
Hemodynamic Safety of Continuous Infusion Labetalol Versus Esmolol Combination Therapies for Type B Aortic Dissections.
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.
Myers Kayla L, Leong Christopher R, Mahmoud Ahmed A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Medical management for type B aortic dissections (TBADs) require aggressive blood pressure and heart rate control to minimize further dissection extension and to restore perfusion to vital organs. Current guidelines recommend β-blockers (BB) as first-line therapy, however do not differentiate an ideal agent for use.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the hemodynamic safety of continuous infusion labetalol compared to esmolol combination (EC) therapies for TBADs.
METHODS: This single-center, retrospective analysis identified patients with a TBAD who received high dose continuous intravenous labetalol (HD-CIVL) or EC therapies. Patients who received HD-CIVL or EC therapies for a minimum of 2 hours, during which a minimum of 4 blood-pressure readings were recorded, were included. The primary end point was the incidence of hemodynamic instability with the use of HD-CIVL versus EC therapies.
RESULTS: A total of 20 patients receiving HD-CIVL and 22 patients receiving EC therapy were included in the analysis. Ten (50%) of patients receiving HD-CIVL and 7 (32%) of patients receiving EC therapies met the clinical definition of hemodynamic instability (P = .23). Patients experiencing hemodynamic instability were all due to hypotension, with one also being due to bradycardia. Over half the patients in both groups had discontinued therapy ( P = .06) and were administered bolus fluids (P = .27). Only one patient receiving HD-CIVL required vasopressor administration while none in the EC group (P = .48).
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that HD-CIVL is associated with a nonstatistical significant higher incidence of hemodynamic instability compared to an EC regimen in TBADs. Further studies are warranted in this patient population.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the hemodynamic safety of continuous infusion labetalol compared to esmolol combination (EC) therapies for TBADs.
METHODS: This single-center, retrospective analysis identified patients with a TBAD who received high dose continuous intravenous labetalol (HD-CIVL) or EC therapies. Patients who received HD-CIVL or EC therapies for a minimum of 2 hours, during which a minimum of 4 blood-pressure readings were recorded, were included. The primary end point was the incidence of hemodynamic instability with the use of HD-CIVL versus EC therapies.
RESULTS: A total of 20 patients receiving HD-CIVL and 22 patients receiving EC therapy were included in the analysis. Ten (50%) of patients receiving HD-CIVL and 7 (32%) of patients receiving EC therapies met the clinical definition of hemodynamic instability (P = .23). Patients experiencing hemodynamic instability were all due to hypotension, with one also being due to bradycardia. Over half the patients in both groups had discontinued therapy ( P = .06) and were administered bolus fluids (P = .27). Only one patient receiving HD-CIVL required vasopressor administration while none in the EC group (P = .48).
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that HD-CIVL is associated with a nonstatistical significant higher incidence of hemodynamic instability compared to an EC regimen in TBADs. Further studies are warranted in this patient population.