OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the ease of use and tolerability of labetalol (L) and nicardipine (N) for hypertension management in patients with acute stroke. METHODS: This is a retrospective, non-randomized study. Consecutive adults within 24 h of hospital admission who received intravenous bolus labetalol or nicardipine infusion as first-line antihypertensive therapy were identified. Hemodynamic data were collected through 24 h of therapy. RESULTS: Ninety patients received either labetalol (N = 64) or nicardipine (N = 26) initially for blood pressure (BP) management. Stroke types were 54% intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), 22% subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 23% ischemic stroke and were similar between the two drug groups. Baseline patient characteristics and disease severity (APACHE II and GCS) were similar between groups. The average total daily labetalol dose was 40 (10-340) mg and nicardipine infusion was 5 (1-14) mg/h. Initial BP was similar in the two groups. The nicardipine group had less BP variability (N 8.19 vs. L 10.78 mmHg; p = 0.003), fewer dosage adjustments [L 4 (1-17), N 2 (0-5); p < 0.001] and fewer additional antihypertensive agents (L 33%, N 8%; p = 0.013) administered during the 24-h observation period. In patients with ICH, 33% of nicardipine-treated patients achieved target BP within the first 60 min versus 6% of the L group (p = 0.02). Overall, incidence of hypotension (SBP < 90 mmHg) (L 3%; N 0%) and bradycardia (HR < 60 beats per min) (L 20.6%; N 12%) were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nicardipine offers an alternative to labetalol with similar tolerability and appears to provide a smoother blood pressure control compared to labetalol.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the ease of use and tolerability of labetalol (L) and nicardipine (N) for hypertension management in patients with acute stroke. METHODS: This is a retrospective, non-randomized study. Consecutive adults within 24 h of hospital admission who received intravenous bolus labetalol or nicardipine infusion as first-line antihypertensive therapy were identified. Hemodynamic data were collected through 24 h of therapy. RESULTS: Ninety patients received either labetalol (N = 64) or nicardipine (N = 26) initially for blood pressure (BP) management. Stroke types were 54% intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), 22% subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 23% ischemic stroke and were similar between the two drug groups. Baseline patient characteristics and disease severity (APACHE II and GCS) were similar between groups. The average total daily labetalol dose was 40 (10-340) mg and nicardipine infusion was 5 (1-14) mg/h. Initial BP was similar in the two groups. The nicardipine group had less BP variability (N 8.19 vs. L 10.78 mmHg; p = 0.003), fewer dosage adjustments [L 4 (1-17), N 2 (0-5); p < 0.001] and fewer additional antihypertensive agents (L 33%, N 8%; p = 0.013) administered during the 24-h observation period. In patients with ICH, 33% of nicardipine-treated patients achieved target BP within the first 60 min versus 6% of the L group (p = 0.02). Overall, incidence of hypotension (SBP < 90 mmHg) (L 3%; N 0%) and bradycardia (HR < 60 beats per min) (L 20.6%; N 12%) were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:Nicardipine offers an alternative to labetalol with similar tolerability and appears to provide a smoother blood pressure control compared to labetalol.
Authors: Thorsten Steiner; Markku Kaste; Markku Katse; Michael Forsting; David Mendelow; Hubert Kwiecinski; Istvan Szikora; Seppo Juvela; Andrzej Marchel; René Chapot; Christophe Cognard; Andreas Unterberg; Werner Hacke Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2006-07-28 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Harold P Adams; Gregory del Zoppo; Mark J Alberts; Deepak L Bhatt; Lawrence Brass; Anthony Furlan; Robert L Grubb; Randall T Higashida; Edward C Jauch; Chelsea Kidwell; Patrick D Lyden; Lewis B Morgenstern; Adnan I Qureshi; Robert H Rosenwasser; Phillip A Scott; Eelco F M Wijdicks Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-04-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: José Castillo; Rogelio Leira; María M García; Joaquín Serena; Miguel Blanco; Antoni Dávalos Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-01-15 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez; Jiz Thomas; Andres Reccius; Sachin Agarwal; Hector Lantigua; Min Li; Amanda M Carpenter; Stephan A Mayer; J Michael Schmidt; Kiwon Lee; Jan Claassen; Neeraj Badjatia; Christine Lesch Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Janelle O Poyant; Philip J Kuper; Kristin C Mara; Ross A Dierkhising; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Eelco F M Wijdicks; Brianne M Ritchie Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Amanda V Woloszyn; Karen J McAllen; Bryan E Figueroa; Robert S DeShane; Jeffrey F Barletta Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Chad M Cannon; Phillip Levy; Brigitte M Baumann; Pierre Borczuk; Abhinav Chandra; David M Cline; Deborah B Diercks; Brian Hiestand; Amy Hsu; Preeti Jois; Brian Kaminski; Richard M Nowak; Jon W Schrock; Joseph Varon; W Frank Peacock Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 2.692