Clevidipine compared with nitroglycerin for blood pressure control in coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized double-blind study

The Current Role of Clevidipine in the Management of Hypertension

Acute hypertension, which may damage blood vessels, causes irreversible organ damage to the vasculature, central nervous system, kidney, and heart. Clevidipine, the first third-generation calcium channel antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the past 20 years, is an ultra-short-acting calcium channel blocker that inhibits L-type calcium channels with high clearance and low distribution, can be rapidly metabolized into the corresponding inactive acid, and is rapidly hydrolyzed into inactive metabolites by esterase in arterial blood. Clevidipine is the same as nicardipine in that the main physiological effect is vasodilation and the main target is the arterial system, which has a limited effect on capacitor vessels. Unlike nitroglycerin, clevidipine has a limited effect on preload. In contrast to other direct-acting vasodilators, clevidipine has an ultra-short half-life due to metabolism by nonspecific blood and tissue esterases. Clevidipine trials conducted in adult populations have proven that it can rapidly control blood pressure in cardiac surgery situations and that adverse reactions to clevidipine are similar to those with other antihypertensive agents. In recent years, clinical trials have shown that clevidipine has excellent blood pressure-lowering capability in patients with acute neurological injury (hemorrhage, stroke, and subarachnoid and acute intracerebral hemorrhage), those  undergoing coronary artery bypass graft or spinal surgery, and in those with cerebral aneurysm/pheochromocytoma, acute heart failure, acute aortic syndromes, or renal insufficiency with severe hypertension, and it is equivalent to commonly used blood pressure-lowering medicines such as nicardipine or nitroglycerin. However, there is a lack of large-scale clinical trial data on the efficacy and safety of clevidipine in children during the perioperative period.

Blood pressure lowering effect of calcium channel blockers on perioperative hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute perioperative hypertension has been associated with poor outcomes of surgery, and the role of calcium channel blockers (CCB) on controlling perioperative blood pressure (BP) remains controversial. Thus, this meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of CCB in treating perioperative hypertension compared with other antihypertensive agents.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and EMABSE databases was systematically searched up to January 2018 for randomized control trials (RCTs) or other control studies comparing the efficacy of CCB versus other antihypertensive medicines for perioperative hypertension modulation. The efficacy and safety of CCB in treating perioperative hypertension were assessed through pooling mean difference (MD) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) or risk ratio (RR) with its 95% CI.

RESULTS

In total, 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There is no significant difference regarding successful treatment (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 0.95, 7.29; I = 97%, P <.05), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD = -7.05, 95% CI: -16.27, 2.17; I = 78%, P <.05), overall adverse events (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.66, 1.16; I = 54%, P = .02), atrial fibrillation (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60, 1.07; I = 32%, P = .20) and heart rates (MD = -1.05, 95% CI: -7.81, 5.71; I = 84%, P < .05) between patients treated by CCB and other drugs. In the subgroup analysis, statistical significance can be observed regarding successful treatment (RR = 3.46, 95%CI: 1.67, 7.18; I = 84%, P <.05) and postoperative SBP (MD = -9.98, 95%CI: -20.03, 0.08; I = 97%, P <.05) in the RCTs subgroup.

CONCLUSION

CCB was highly effective and well tolerated for treating perioperative hypertension.

Nitrates for the prevention of cardiac morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Cardiac complications are not uncommon in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, especially in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or at high risk of CAD. Perioperative cardiac complications can lead to mortality and morbidity, as well as higher costs for patient care. Nitrates, which are among the most commonly used cardiovascular drugs, perform the function of decreasing cardiac preload while improving cardiac blood perfusion. Sometimes, nitrates are administered to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery to reduce the incidence of cardiac complications, especially for patients with CAD. However, their effects on patients' relevant outcomes remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

• To assess effects of nitrates as compared with other interventions or placebo in reducing cardiac risk (such as death caused by cardiac factors, angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, acute heart failure and cardiac arrhythmia) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.• To identify the influence of different routes and dosages of nitrates on patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Chinese BioMedical Database until June 2014. We also searched relevant conference abstracts of important anaesthesiology or cardiology scientific meetings, the database of ongoing trials and Google Scholar.We reran the search in January 2016. We added three potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into our formal review findings for the review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nitrates versus no treatment, placebo or other pharmacological interventions in participants (15 years of age and older) undergoing non-cardiac surgery under any type of anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Two review authors selected trials, extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved differences by discussion and, when necessary, sought help and suggestions from a third review author. We used a random-effects model for data analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (8244 participants analysed). Investigators reported 12 different comparisons of three different nitrates (nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate and nicorandil) versus no treatment, placebo or other pharmacological interventions. All participants were older than 15 years of age. More than half of the trials used general anaesthesia. Surgical procedures in most trials were at low to moderate risk for perioperative cardiac complications. Only two comparisons including three studies reported the primary outcome - all-cause mortality up to 30 days post operation. Researchers reported other morbidity outcomes and adverse events in a variable and heterogeneous way, resulting in limited available data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. We determined that the overall methodological quality of included studies was fair to low, in accordance with risk of bias in most domains.In summary, we found no difference in the primary outcome - all-cause mortality up to 30 days post operation - when nitroglycerin was compared with no treatment (one study, 60 participants, 0/30 vs 1/30; (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.87, very low-quality evidence based on GRADE criteria) or with placebo (two studies, 89 participants, 1/45 vs 0/44; RR 2.81, 95% CI 0.12 to 63.83, very low-quality evidence). Regarding our secondary outcomes, we noted no statistically significant differences in angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrest in any comparisons. In comparisons versus nitroglycerin, although more events of cardiac ischaemia were observed in participants receiving no treatment or placebo, we found no statistically significant differences in any comparisons, except the comparison of nicorandil versus placebo. One study revealed a potential dose-dependent protective effect of nicorandil for cardiac ischaemia.Adverse events were reported in a heterogeneous way among the comparisons. In general, more participants treated with nitrates had hypotension, tachycardia and headache, but investigators reported no statistically significant differences between groups in any comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that nitroglycerin or isosorbide dinitrate is not associated with improvement in mortality and cardiac complications among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Limited evidence suggests that nicorandil may reduce the risk of cardiac ischaemia in participants undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Additional studies are needed to consolidate the evidence.However, the data included in many of the analyses in this review are sparse - that is, adequate data are few - resulting in very low power to detect differences between nitrates and comparators. Thus, a more objective conclusion would state that available evidence is insufficient to show whether nitrates are associated with improvement in mortality and cardiac complications among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.Over the past decade, no high-quality studies have focused on association of cardiac mortality and morbidity with use of nitrates during non-cardiac surgery. This review underlines the need for well-designed trials in this field.

Perioperative Use of Clevidipine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Clevidipine is an ultrashort-acting drug for rapid reduction of blood pressure by selectively acting on the L-type Ca2+ channels on arteriolar smooth muscle. The drug’s ultrashort action in reducing the blood pressure is due to its rapid hydrolysis by blood and extravascular tissue esterases, which does not depend on hepato-renal metabolism and excretion. An analysis of the perioperative management of blood pressure should be considered to compare with other intravenous antihypertensive agents.

Methods

Analyses of the available evidence in randomized clinical trials following the PRISMA methodology as well as clinical significance according to the GRADE system were conducted. Placebo versus other antihypertensive drugs studies were included. Statistical assessments were done using the X2 and I2 tests.

Results

Clevidipine was more effective in maintaining the blood pressure within pre-specified ranges compared with other antihypertensive drugs (MD, -17.87 CI 95%: -29.02 to -6.72; p = 0.02). The use of Clevidipine versus placebo and rescue antihypertensive intravenous drug showed a clear reduction in rates of treatment failure (RR 0.10; IC 95%; 0.05–0.18; p <0.0001). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.43, p = 0.14) and with other antihypertensive drugs (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.35; p = 0.37). In addition, there was no difference in the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) between clevidipine and control groups (RR 1.09, IC del 95%: 0.65 a 1.83; p = 0.73).

Conclusions

Clevidipine is an ultrafast-acting drug that is highly effective for management of perioperative arterial hypertension. It is devoid of adverse effects associated with the use of other IV antihypertensives. Its favorable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties make clevidipine the drug of choice for the management of acute perioperative hypertension. It is important to emphasize the need for further studies with a larger number of patients to confirm these findings and increase the degree of evidence.

Clevidipine: a review of its use for managing blood pressure in perioperative and intensive care settings

The ultrashort-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist clevidipine (Cleviprex(®)) has a rapid onset and offset of effect and reduces blood pressure (BP) by decreasing arteriolar resistance without affecting venous capacitance vessels. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of intravenous clevidipine when used to manage BP in perioperative and intensive care settings, as well as summarizing its pharmacological properties. Intravenous clevidipine effectively treated preoperative and postoperative hypertension in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, according to the results of the randomized, multicentre, double-blind, phase III ESCAPE-1 and ESCAPE-2 trials. The randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase III ECLIPSE trials indicated that in terms of keeping systolic BP within the target range, clevidipine was more effective than nitroglycerin or sodium nitroprusside perioperatively and had similar efficacy to nicardipine postoperatively in cardiac surgery patients. In small, double-blind trials in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, perioperative clevidipine was noninferior to nitroglycerin, and postoperative clevidipine had similar efficacy to sodium nitroprusside. Noncomparative studies demonstrated that clevidipine provided rapid BP control in patients with acute neurological injuries (including intracerebral haemorrhage, subarachnoid haemorrhage and acute ischaemic stroke), and was not associated with 'overshoot' in the vast majority of patients. Intravenous clevidipine was generally well tolerated and was usually associated with no reflex tachycardia or only very modest increases in heart rate. In conclusion, intravenous clevidipine is a valuable agent for the management of BP in perioperative and intensive care settings.