We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of Clevidipine Versus Sodium Nitroprusside for the Treatment of Postoperative Hypertension in Cardiac Surgery Patients.
Hospital Pharmacy 2016 June
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of clevidipine (CLV) versus sodium nitroprusside (SNP) for the treatment of hypertension (HTN) in postoperative cardiac surgery patients at a community hospital.
METHODS: This single-center, retrospective, cohort study included cardiac surgery patients treated with CLV or SNP for postoperative systolic blood pressure (SBP) control. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as the mean number of times the SBP rose above 140 mm Hg. Secondary outcomes included a comparative cost analysis and a safety analysis.
RESULTS: Forty patients were included in each arm. Patients who received CLV had a higher incidence of SBP readings greater than 140 mm Hg (p < .05). There were no differences in safety outcomes, number of patients who received as-needed (PRN) antihypertensives, or mean number of PRN antihypertensives required. There were differences in infusion duration (22.4 hours CLV vs 15.6 hours SNP; p = .035), number of infusions dispensed (2.8 CLV vs 1.3 SNP; p = .001), and length of hospital stay (12.33 days CLV vs 7.65 days SNP; p = .013). However, CLV was less expensive based on the AWP cost at the time of review.
CONCLUSIONS: Although a difference in blood pressure control was seen between CLV and SNP, the safety profiles were similar between the 2 drugs. In addition, CLV remained less expensive than SNP for postoperative BP control.
METHODS: This single-center, retrospective, cohort study included cardiac surgery patients treated with CLV or SNP for postoperative systolic blood pressure (SBP) control. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as the mean number of times the SBP rose above 140 mm Hg. Secondary outcomes included a comparative cost analysis and a safety analysis.
RESULTS: Forty patients were included in each arm. Patients who received CLV had a higher incidence of SBP readings greater than 140 mm Hg (p < .05). There were no differences in safety outcomes, number of patients who received as-needed (PRN) antihypertensives, or mean number of PRN antihypertensives required. There were differences in infusion duration (22.4 hours CLV vs 15.6 hours SNP; p = .035), number of infusions dispensed (2.8 CLV vs 1.3 SNP; p = .001), and length of hospital stay (12.33 days CLV vs 7.65 days SNP; p = .013). However, CLV was less expensive based on the AWP cost at the time of review.
CONCLUSIONS: Although a difference in blood pressure control was seen between CLV and SNP, the safety profiles were similar between the 2 drugs. In addition, CLV remained less expensive than SNP for postoperative BP control.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app