Oral labetalol versus oral nifedipine in hypertensive urgencies in the ED

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.

Topical nitroglycerin ointment for treatment of acute hypertension in hospitalized inpatients

BACKGROUND

Hypertension in the hospital setting is common; however, guidelines provide limited guidance specific to the inpatient setting. Acute antihypertensive treatment options can be limited in this setting by monitoring requirements of intravenous medications and patients' inability to take oral medications. A possible treatment choice used to treat acute hypertension is nitroglycerin ointment. Nitroglycerin is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for this condition, and limited evidence exists to support this indication.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the statistical and clinical effectiveness of nitroglycerin ointment as a treatment option for acute hypertension based on a 20 mm Hg or greater reduction in systolic blood pressure.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review at a large tertiary community teaching hospital was performed on all adult noncardiac inpatients with an episode of acute hypertension that resulted in the administration of nitroglycerin ointment.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients met inclusion criteria with a total of 112 applications of nitroglycerin ointment. Of the 112 applications, systolic blood pressure decreased 20 mm Hg or more in 42% of occurrences with a median decrease of 16 mm Hg.

CONCLUSION

Study results suggest possible efficacy of nitroglycerin ointment for the treatment of acute hypertension in noncardiac hospitalized patients.

Oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies: systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Hypertensive urgencies are defined as severe elevations in blood pressure without evidence of acute or progressive target-organ damage. The need for treatment is considered urgent but allows for slow control using oral or sublingual drugs. If the increase in blood pressure is not associated with risk to life or acute target-organ damage, blood pressure control must be implemented slowly over 24 hours. For hypertensive urgencies, it is not known which class of antihypertensive drug provides the best results and there is controversy regarding when to use antihypertensive drugs and which ones to use in these situations. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies.

METHODS

This systematic review of the literature was developed at the Brazilian Cochrane Center, and in the Discipline of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo - Escola Paulista de Medicina (Unifesp-EPM), in accordance with the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized clinical trials including 769 participants were selected. They showed that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors had a superior effect in treating hypertensive urgencies, evaluated among 223 participants. The commonest adverse event for calcium channel blockers were headache (35/206), flushing (17/172) and palpitations (14/189). For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, the principal side effect was bad taste (25/38).

CONCLUSIONS

There is important evidence in favor of the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for treating hypertensive urgencies, compared with calcium channel blockers, considering the better effectiveness and the lower frequency of adverse effects (like headache and flushing).

Severe Hypertension in the Emergency Department Patient

Severely elevated blood pressure is a common clinical problem en-countered in the Emergency Department. It is often difficult for physicians to differentiate between patients who need emergent blood pressure reduction, requiring the use of intravenous agents and in-tensive monitoring, and those for whom careful, slow reduction in BP is more appropriate. The optimal assessment and management of these patients is reviewed here, with an emphasis on clinical strategies that will most efficiently identify those at greatest risk.

Management of patients with hypertensive urgencies and emergencies: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive urgencies and emergencies are common clinical occurrences in hypertensive patients. Treatment practices vary considerably to because of the lack of evidence supporting the use of one therapeutic agent over another. This paper was designed to review the evidence for various pharmacotherapeutic regimens in the management of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies, in terms of the agents' abilities to reach predetermined "safe" goal blood pressures (BPs), and to prevent adverse events.

METHODS

medline was searched from 1966 to 2001, and the reference lists of all the articles were retrieved and searched for relevant references, and experts in the field were contacted to identify other relevant studies. The Cochrane Library was also searched. Studies that were eligible for inclusion in this review were systematic reviews of randomized control trials (RCTs) and individual RCTs, all-or-none studies, systematic reviews of cohort studies and individual cohort studies, and outcomes research. No language restrictions were used.

RESULTS

None of the trials included in this review identified an optimal rate of BP lowering in hypertensive emergencies and urgencies. The definitions of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies were not consistent, but emergencies always involved target end-organ damage, and urgencies were without such damage. Measures of outcome were not uniform between studies. The 4 hypertensive emergency and 15 hypertensive urgency studies represented 236 and 1,074 patients, respectively. The evidence indicated a nonsignificant trend toward increased efficacy with urapidil compared to nitroprusside for hypertensive emergencies (number needed to treat [NNT] for urapidil to achieve target BP, 12; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], number of patients needed to harm [NNH], 5 to NNT, 40 compared to nitroprusside). Several medications were efficacious in treating hypertensive urgencies, including: nicardipine (NNT for nicardipine compared to plabebo, 2 in one study [95% CI, 1 to 5] and 1 in another [95% CI, 1 to 1]); lacidipine (NNT, 2; 95% CI, 1 to 8 for lacidipine vs nifedipine) or urapidil (NNT for urapidil compared to enalaprilat and nifedipine, 4; 95% CI, 3 to 6); and nitroprusside and fenoldopam (all patients reached target BP in 2 studies). The studies reported 2 cases of cerebral ischemia secondary to nifedipine.

CONCLUSIONS

Many effective agents exist for the treatment of hypertensive crises. Because of the lack of large randomized controlled trials, many questions remain unanswered, such as follow-up times and whether any of the studied agents have mortality benefit.

Stroke precipitated by moderate blood pressure reduction

Rapid lowering of blood pressure can precipitate or worsen ischemic strokes. This usually has been observed in the setting of profoundly lowered pressure and hypotension. We report on six patients in whom ischemic neurologic injury ensued or worsened after moderate reduction of blood pressure by pharmacological treatment. The 6 patients suffered new or worsened ischemic neurologic deficits after receiving oral or intravenous antihypertensive medications, mostly after relatively small doses. Mean arterial blood pressure in these patients was decreased by 25 +/- 7.7%, or 37 +/- 16 mm Hg (mean +/- SD) without resultant hypotension. These cases emphasize the potential hazards of moderate blood pressure reduction by antihypertensive medications in the setting of an acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), as well as rapidly treated hypertension even in those who have not yet manifested ischemic symptoms.

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.

Oral antihypertensives for hypertensive urgencies

OBJECTIVE

To review the data describing the use of oral antihypertensive agents in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies (HU).

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search of the English-language literature and fan searches of papers evaluating oral antihypertensives in HUs and emergencies were conducted.

STUDY SELECTION

Controlled and uncontrolled studies in humans are reviewed. Emphasis was placed on recent trials evaluating individual agents and comparative trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Comparative trials have demonstrated that four currently available oral agents can lower blood pressure rapidly and predictably. Nifedipine, the most extensively studied, and clonidine have served traditionally as the oral agents of choice for the treatment of HUs. All the agents can lower blood pressure effectively within the first few hours after dosing, but their use also has been associated with adverse effects. Nifedipine and captopril are the two agents with the most rapid onset, within 0.5-1 hour, and may treat hypertensive emergencies as well as urgencies. Clonidine and labetalol have maximal blood pressure lowering effects at 2-4 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Captopril, clonidine, labetalol, and nifedipine are all effective agents for the treatment of HUs. Agent selection should be based on the perceived need for urgent blood pressure control, the cause of HU, and concomitant conditions. A definite benefit from acute blood pressure lowering in HUs has yet to be demonstrated, especially in asymptomatic patients. More controlled trials with less aggressive dosing regimens and placebo controls need to be performed to assess the most appropriate treatment for HUs with the fewest adverse effects.