BACKGROUND: Nicardipine and labetalol are two commonly used antihypertensives for treating elevated blood pressures in the setting of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). There are no studies comparing these two agents as continuous infusions. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients admitted between November 2009 and January 2011 with ICH and SAH to compare effectiveness and safety between both agents. Percent time spent at goal was set as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included blood pressure variability, time to goal, incidence of bradycardia, tachycardia, and hypotension. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were available for analysis, 10 initiated on labetalol (LAB), 57 on nicardipine (NIC), and 14 required the combination of these agents (COMB) to reach goal. We found no difference between NIC, LAB, and the COMB groups in the median percent time at goal [88 % (61-98); 93 % (51-99); 66 % (25-95), (p = NS)]. Median percentage of blood pressure variability, hypotension, and bradycardia were also comparable between groups, however, more tachycardia was observed in the COMB group versus both LAB and NIC groups (45 vs. 0 vs. 3 %; p < 0.001). Mean time to goal SBP in 24 patients who had BP readings available at 1st h of initiation was 32 ± 34 min in the NIC group and 53 ± 42 min in the LAB group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both agents appear equally effective and safe for blood pressure control in SAH and ICH during the initial admission hours. A prospective study is needed to validate these findings.
BACKGROUND:Nicardipine and labetalol are two commonly used antihypertensives for treating elevated blood pressures in the setting of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). There are no studies comparing these two agents as continuous infusions. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients admitted between November 2009 and January 2011 with ICH and SAH to compare effectiveness and safety between both agents. Percent time spent at goal was set as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included blood pressure variability, time to goal, incidence of bradycardia, tachycardia, and hypotension. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were available for analysis, 10 initiated on labetalol (LAB), 57 on nicardipine (NIC), and 14 required the combination of these agents (COMB) to reach goal. We found no difference between NIC, LAB, and the COMB groups in the median percent time at goal [88 % (61-98); 93 % (51-99); 66 % (25-95), (p = NS)]. Median percentage of blood pressure variability, hypotension, and bradycardia were also comparable between groups, however, more tachycardia was observed in the COMB group versus both LAB and NIC groups (45 vs. 0 vs. 3 %; p < 0.001). Mean time to goal SBP in 24 patients who had BP readings available at 1st h of initiation was 32 ± 34 min in the NIC group and 53 ± 42 min in the LAB group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both agents appear equally effective and safe for blood pressure control in SAH and ICH during the initial admission hours. A prospective study is needed to validate these findings.
Authors: Joshua B Bederson; E Sander Connolly; H Hunt Batjer; Ralph G Dacey; Jacques E Dion; Michael N Diringer; John E Duldner; Robert E Harbaugh; Aman B Patel; Robert H Rosenwasser Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-01-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Lewis B Morgenstern; J Claude Hemphill; Craig Anderson; Kyra Becker; Joseph P Broderick; E Sander Connolly; Steven M Greenberg; James N Huang; R Loch MacDonald; Steven R Messé; Pamela H Mitchell; Magdy Selim; Rafael J Tamargo Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 7.914
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: 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: Craig S Anderson; Yining Huang; Ji Guang Wang; Hisatomi Arima; Bruce Neal; Bin Peng; Emma Heeley; Christian Skulina; Mark W Parsons; Jong Sung Kim; Qing Ling Tao; Yue Chun Li; Jian Dong Jiang; Li Wen Tai; Jin Li Zhang; En Xu; Yan Cheng; Stephane Heritier; Lewis B Morgenstern; John Chalmers Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-04-07 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: W Frank Peacock; Joseph Varon; Brigitte M Baumann; Pierre Borczuk; Chad M Cannon; Abhinav Chandra; David M Cline; Deborah Diercks; Brian Hiestand; A Hsu; Preeti Jois-Bilowich; Brian Kaminski; Philip Levy; Richard M Nowak; Jon W Schrock Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Sara Saldana; James Breslin; Jennifer Hanify; Theodore Heierman; Kristina Larizadeh; Michael Sanchez; William Phipps Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Fawaz Al-Mufti; Stephan A Mayer; Gurmeen Kaur; Daniel Bassily; Boyi Li; Matthew L Holstein; Jood Ani; Nicole E Matluck; Haris Kamal; Rolla Nuoman; Christian A Bowers; Faizan S Ali; Hussein Al-Shammari; Mohammad El-Ghanem; Chirag Gandhi; Krishna Amuluru Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2021-09-03
Authors: Airton Leonardo de Oliveira Manoel; Alberto Goffi; Fernando Godinho Zampieri; David Turkel-Parrella; Abhijit Duggal; Thomas R Marotta; R Loch Macdonald; Simon Abrahamson Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-09-18 Impact factor: 9.097