Janelle O Poyant1,2, Philip J Kuper3, Kristin C Mara4, Ross A Dierkhising4, Alejandro A Rabinstein5, Eelco F M Wijdicks5, Brianne M Ritchie3. 1. Department of Pharmacy Services, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. JPoyant@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 2. , Boston, USA. JPoyant@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 3. Department of Pharmacy Services, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Statistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood pressure variability (BPV) is an independent predictor for early hematoma expansion, neurologic deterioration, and mortality. There are no studies on the effect of intravenous (IV) antihypertensive drugs on BPV. We sought to determine whether patients have more BPV with certain antihypertensive agents, in particular the effect of IV nicardipine. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective chart review of individuals diagnosed with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) receiving labetalol, hydralazine, and/or nicardipine within 24 h of hospital admission to assess the primary endpoint of BPV, defined as the standard deviation of systolic BP, with labetalol and/or hydralazine compared to nicardipine ± labetalol and/or hydralazine. Repeated measures linear regression was performed to compare BPV over 24 h between regimens, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to goal SBP between regimens. RESULTS: Of the 1330 patients screened, 272 were included in our analysis; those included had a mean age of 69 years with 87.9% of Caucasian race. A total of 164 patients received IV bolus antihypertensives alone (labetalol, hydralazine or both), and 108 patients received IV nicardipine with or without additional IV boluses (labetalol, hydralazine, or both). Those who had IV nicardipine had significantly less BPV (p = 0.04) and was more likely to attain an SBP goal < 140 mmHg (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests patients with ICH who do not receive a nicardipine-based antihypertensive regimen have more BPV, which has been associated with poor clinical outcomes. Prospective, randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine the impact of specific antihypertensive regimens on clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Blood pressure variability (BPV) is an independent predictor for early hematoma expansion, neurologic deterioration, and mortality. There are no studies on the effect of intravenous (IV) antihypertensive drugs on BPV. We sought to determine whether patients have more BPV with certain antihypertensive agents, in particular the effect of IV nicardipine. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective chart review of individuals diagnosed with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) receiving labetalol, hydralazine, and/or nicardipine within 24 h of hospital admission to assess the primary endpoint of BPV, defined as the standard deviation of systolic BP, with labetalol and/or hydralazine compared to nicardipine ± labetalol and/or hydralazine. Repeated measures linear regression was performed to compare BPV over 24 h between regimens, and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to goal SBP between regimens. RESULTS: Of the 1330 patients screened, 272 were included in our analysis; those included had a mean age of 69 years with 87.9% of Caucasian race. A total of 164 patients received IV bolus antihypertensives alone (labetalol, hydralazine or both), and 108 patients received IV nicardipine with or without additional IV boluses (labetalol, hydralazine, or both). Those who had IV nicardipine had significantly less BPV (p = 0.04) and was more likely to attain an SBP goal < 140 mmHg (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests patients with ICH who do not receive a nicardipine-based antihypertensive regimen have more BPV, which has been associated with poor clinical outcomes. Prospective, randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine the impact of specific antihypertensive regimens on clinical outcomes.
Authors: Adnan I Qureshi; Yuko Y Palesch; William G Barsan; Daniel F Hanley; Chung Y Hsu; Renee L Martin; Claudia S Moy; Robert Silbergleit; Thorsten Steiner; Jose I Suarez; Kazunori Toyoda; Yongjun Wang; Haruko Yamamoto; Byung-Woo Yoon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Craig S Anderson; Emma Heeley; Yining Huang; Jiguang Wang; Christian Stapf; Candice Delcourt; Richard Lindley; Thompson Robinson; Pablo Lavados; Bruce Neal; Jun Hata; Hisatomi Arima; Mark Parsons; Yuechun Li; Jinchao Wang; Stephane Heritier; Qiang Li; Mark Woodward; R John Simes; Stephen M Davis; John Chalmers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K N Vemmos; G Tsivgoulis; K Spengos; N Zakopoulos; A Synetos; E Manios; P Konstantopoulou; M Mavrikakis Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 8.989
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: Abdulrahman I Alshaya; Meshari Alghamdi; Sumaya N Almohareb; Omar A Alshaya; Mohammed Aldhaeefi; Abdullah F Alharthi; Sulaiman Almohaish Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Qi Li; Andrew D Warren; Adnan I Qureshi; Andrea Morotti; Guido J Falcone; Kevin N Sheth; Ashkan Shoamanesh; Dar Dowlatshahi; Anand Viswanathan; Joshua N Goldstein Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Quincy K Tran; Daniel Najafali; Laura Tiffany; Safura Tanveer; Brooke Andersen; Michelle Dawson; Rachel Hausladen; Matthew Jackson; Ann Matta; Jordan Mitchell; Christopher Yum; Diane Kuhn Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2021-01-12