Oral labetalol in hypertensive urgencies

Pharmacologic Treatment of Hypertensive Urgency in the Outpatient Setting: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive urgency (HU), defined as acute severe uncontrolled hypertension without end-organ damage, is a common condition. Despite its association with long-term morbidity and mortality, guidance regarding immediate management is sparse. Our objective was to summarize the evidence examining the effects of antihypertensive medications to treat.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase through May 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

We evaluated prospective controlled clinical trials, case-control studies, and cohort studies of HU in emergency room (ER) or clinic settings. We initially identified 11,223 published articles. We reviewed 10,748 titles and abstracts and identified 538 eligible articles. We assessed the full text for eligibility and included 31 articles written in English that were clinical trials or cohort studies and provided blood pressure data within 48 h of treatment. Studies were appraised for risk of bias using components recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The main outcome measured was blood pressure change with antihypertensive medications. Since studies were too diverse both clinically and methodologically to combine in a meta-analysis, tabular data and a narrative synthesis of studies are presented.

RESULTS

We identified only 20 double-blind randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies, with 262 participants in prospective controlled trials. However, we could not pool the results of studies. In addition, comorbidities and their potential contribution to long-term treatment of these subjects were not adequately addressed in any of the reviewed studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Longitudinal studies are still needed to determine how best to lower blood pressure in patients with HU. Longer-term management of individuals who have experienced HU continues to be an area requiring further study, especially as applicable to care from the generalist.

Asymptomatic hypertension in the ED

A retrospective study in an urban, municipal, teaching hospital emergency department (ED) was conducted to evaluate (1) the frequency of asymptomatic hypertension in the ED, (2) the initial assessment and patterns of treatment by physicians, and (3) the changes in blood pressure (BP) in these patients. Patients with systolic BP > or = 180 mm Hg or diastolic BP > or = 110 mm Hg were included. Patients with cardiovascular, renal, or central nervous system dysfunction were excluded. Of the 11,531 charts reviewed, 269 (2.3%) met inclusion criteria. Of the 269 patients, 56 patients (20.8%) received antihypertensive treatment in the ED. The treatment group had a higher systolic BP (P < .001), diastolic BP (P < .001), and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) (P < .001) than the nontreatment group. Fundoscopy was also performed more frequently in the treatment group (30.2% v 8.9%, P < .001). MAP decreased for both groups in the ED, but was higher in the treatment group (-20+/-21 v -11+/-21 mm Hg, P=.02). Despite the lack of support in the literature for the emergency treatment of asymptomatic hypertension in the ED, the individual physician's decision for treatment correlated with the degree of hypertension. Significantly elevated BP readings in the ED tended to decrease over time independent of any antihypertensive treatment, although the decrease was larger in the treated patients.

Advances in pharmacotherapy: treatment of hypertensive crisis

A hypertensive crisis can be caused by many factors. Frequently, the mechanism involved is complex and highly variable among patients. Without drug therapy, this condition is associated with very high mortality and morbidity. There are a number of oral and intravenous hypotensive agents available, which can effectively control blood pressure in a hypertensive crisis. The relative advantages and disadvantages of each treatment option is discussed.

Intravenous urapidil versus sublingual nifedipine in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies

In a 6-month prospective study, the efficacy and safety of urapidil and nifedipine in an outpatient population with hypertensive urgencies (systolic blood pressure > 200 mm Hg; diastolic blood pressure > 110 mm Hg) was investigated. Response to treatment was defined as a stable reduction of systolic blood pressure below 180 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg 15 minutes after application of a single dose of either 25 mg urapidil intravenously (N = 26) or 10 mg nifedipine sublingually (N = 27). If the blood pressure was still elevated, a second dose of 10 mg nifedipine or 12.5 mg urapidil was given, and blood pressure response was evaluated 15 minutes after application of the second dose according to the aforementioned criterias. After the first application of nifedipine, 19 (70%) responders have been observed. Eight patients needed an additional 10 mg of nifedipine. In four of these patients, no reduction of blood pressure was observed after a second dose of nifedipine. In contrast, 24 (92%) patients responded well to the first application of 25 mg of urapidil. Two patients required a second dose of 12.5 mg of urapidil, but no nonresponder to urapidil was observed. No severe side-effects were noted in both groups. Intravenous urapidil is a highly effective drug in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies and is more effective than sublingual nifedipine, because the number of patients treated successfully was significantly higher.

Oral labetalol versus oral nifedipine in hypertensive urgencies in the ED

Therapy in hypertensive urgencies is debated and complicated by the side effects of available agents. In a prospective, randomized, open labeled study, the use of oral labetalol, an alpha- and beta-adrenergic blocker, with oral nifedipine in hypertensive urgencies in the emergency department was compared. Patients with diastolic blood pressures (DBP) of more than 120 mm Hg without criteria for a hypertensive emergency were eligible. The drugs were given in a loading manner with doses and timing based on their respective pharmacokinetics until a DBP of 110 mm Hg or lower was obtained or 4 hours had passed. Either an initial labetalol dose of 200 mg and a repeat dose of 100 to 200 mg at 2 hours, depending on the DBP or nifedipine, 10-mg bite and swallow every hour up to a total dose of 20 mg were given. Ten patients were enrolled into each study group. A 100% response rate was defined as a DBP of 110 mm Hg or less was observed for nifedipine and an 80% response rate for labetalol (P > .2) was observed. The mean time to control was 67.5 minutes for labetalol and 60.0 minutes for nifedipine (P > .2). The pretreatment pressure for labetalol was 195/127 mm Hg and for nifedipine was 198/128 mm Hg (P > .2), which decreased to a posttreatment pressure for labetalol of 154/100 mm Hg and for nifedipine of 163/100 mm Hg (P > .2). The mean decrease in systolic (SBP)/DBP was 42.6/26.5 mm Hg with labetalol and 34.9/28.4 mm Hg for nifedipine (P > .2). No significant side effects occurred with either drug.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)