We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
Comparison of Clevidipine and Nicardipine for Acute Blood Pressure Reduction in Patients With Stroke.
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2019 November
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether clevidipine (CLEV) achieved faster blood pressure control compared to nicardipine (NIC) in patients presenting with either an acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or a spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).
METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, cohort study conducted in patients with AIS or ICH admitted to the emergency department of a Comprehensive Stroke Center from November 2011 to June 2013 who received CLEV or NIC continuous infusion for acute blood pressure management.
RESULTS: The study included 210 patients: 70 in the CLEV group and 140 in the NIC group. There was no difference in mean time (standard deviation [SD]) from initiation of the infusion to goal systolic blood pressure (SBP), CLEV: 50 (83) minutes versus NIC: 74 (103) minutes, P = .101. Comparison of the 2 agents within diagnosis showed no difference. Hypotension developed in 5 (7.1%) CLEV patients versus 14 (10%) NIC patients ( P = .003). There was no difference in the percentage change at 2 hours; CLEV: -20% (16%) versus NIC: -16% (16%), P = .058. Mean (SD) time to alteplase administration from admission was 56 (22) minutes in the CLEV group versus 59 (25) minutes in the NIC group ( P = .684).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the mean time from initiation of the infusion to the SBP goal between agents or in the secondary outcomes. Due to the lack of differences observed, each agent should be considered based on the patient care needs of the institution.
METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, cohort study conducted in patients with AIS or ICH admitted to the emergency department of a Comprehensive Stroke Center from November 2011 to June 2013 who received CLEV or NIC continuous infusion for acute blood pressure management.
RESULTS: The study included 210 patients: 70 in the CLEV group and 140 in the NIC group. There was no difference in mean time (standard deviation [SD]) from initiation of the infusion to goal systolic blood pressure (SBP), CLEV: 50 (83) minutes versus NIC: 74 (103) minutes, P = .101. Comparison of the 2 agents within diagnosis showed no difference. Hypotension developed in 5 (7.1%) CLEV patients versus 14 (10%) NIC patients ( P = .003). There was no difference in the percentage change at 2 hours; CLEV: -20% (16%) versus NIC: -16% (16%), P = .058. Mean (SD) time to alteplase administration from admission was 56 (22) minutes in the CLEV group versus 59 (25) minutes in the NIC group ( P = .684).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the mean time from initiation of the infusion to the SBP goal between agents or in the secondary outcomes. Due to the lack of differences observed, each agent should be considered based on the patient care needs of the institution.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
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