Hypertensive crisis

Hypertensive crisis during pregnancy and postpartum period

Hypertension affects 10% of pregnancies, many with underlying chronic hypertension, and approximately 1-2% will undergo a hypertensive crisis at some point during their lives. Hypertensive crisis includes hypertensive urgency and emergency; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists describes a hypertensive emergency in pregnancy as persistent (lasting 15 min or more), acute-onset, severe hypertension, defined as systolic BP greater than 160 mmHg or diastolic BP >110 mmHg in the setting of pre-eclampsia or eclampsia. Pregnancy may be complicated by hypertensive crisis, with lower blood pressure threshold for end-organ damage than non-pregnant patients. Maternal assessment should include a thorough history. Fetal assessment should include heart rate tracing, ultrasound for growth and amniotic assessment, and Doppler evaluation if growth restriction is suspected. Initial management of hypertensive emergency (systolic BP >160 mmHg or diastolic BP >110 mmHg in the setting of pre-eclampsia or eclampsia) generally includes the rapid reduction of blood pressure through the use of intravenous antihypertensive medications, with goal systolic blood pressure between 140 mmHg and 150 mmHg and diastolic pressure between 90 mmHg and 100 mmHg. First-line intravenous drugs include labetalol and hydralazine, but other agents may be used, including esmolol, nicardipine, nifedipine, and, as a last resort, sodium nitroprusside. Among patients with hypertensive urgency, slower blood pressure reduction can be provided with oral agents. The objective of this article is to review the current understanding, diagnosis, and management of hypertensive crisis during pregnancy and the postpartum period.

Hypertensive emergencies: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Systemic hypertension (HTN) is a common medical condition affecting over 1 billion people worldwide. One to two percent of patients with HTN develop acute elevations of blood pressure (hypertensive crises) that require medical treatment. However, only patients with true hypertensive emergencies require the immediate and controlled reduction of blood pressure with an intravenous antihypertensive agent.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the mortality from hypertensive emergencies has decreased, the prevalence and demographics of this disorder have not changed over the last 4 decades. Clinical experience and reported data suggest that patients with hypertensive urgencies are frequently inappropriately treated with intravenous antihypertensive agents, whereas patients with true hypertensive emergencies are overtreated with significant complications.

SUMMARY

Despite published guidelines, most patients with hypertensive crises are poorly managed with potentially severe outcomes.

A systematic review of nicardipine vs labetalol for the management of hypertensive crises

Hypertensive emergencies are acute elevations in blood pressure (BP) that occur in the presence of progressive end-organ damage. Hypertensive urgencies, defined as elevated BP without acute end-organ damage, can often be treated with oral agents, whereas hypertensive emergencies are best treated with intravenous titratable agents. However, a lack of head-to-head studies has made it difficult to establish which intravenous drug is most effective in treating hypertensive crises. This systematic review presents a synthesis of published studies that compare the antihypertensive agents nicardipine and labetalol in patients experiencing acute hypertensive crises. A MEDLINE search was conducted using the term "labetalol AND nicardipine AND hypertension." Conference abstracts were searched manually. Ultimately, 10 studies were included, encompassing patients with hypertensive crises across an array of indications and practice environments (stroke, the emergency department, critical care, surgery, pediatrics, and pregnancy). The results of this systematic review show comparable efficacy and safety for nicardipine and labetalol, although nicardipine appears to provide more predictable and consistent BP control than labetalol.

Hypertensive crisis

Hypertension is a common chronic medical condition affecting over 65 million Americans. Uncontrolled hypertension can progress to a hypertensive crisis defined as a systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg or a diastolic blood pressure >120 mm Hg. Hypertensive crisis can be further classified as a hypertensive urgency or hypertensive emergency depending on end-organ involvement including cardiac, renal, and neurologic injury. The prompt recognition of a hypertensive emergency with the appropriate diagnostic tests and triage will lead to the adequate reduction of blood pressure, ameliorating the incidence of fatal outcomes. Severely hypertensive patients with acute end-organ damage (hypertensive emergencies) warrant admission to an intensive care unit for immediate reduction of blood pressure with a short-acting titratable intravenous antihypertensive medication. Hypertensive urgencies (severe hypertension with no or minimal end-organ damage) may in general be treated with oral antihypertensives as an outpatient. Rapid and short-lived intravenous medications commonly used are labetalol, esmolol, fenoldopam, nicardipine, sodium nitroprusside, and clevidipine. Medications such as hydralazine, immediate release nifedipine, and nitroglycerin should be avoided. Sodium nitroprusside should be used with caution because of its toxicity. The risk factors and prognosticators of a hypertensive crisis are still under recognized. Physicians should perform complete evaluations in patients who present with a hypertensive crisis to effectively reverse, intervene, and correct the underlying trigger, as well as improve long-term outcomes after the episode.

Hypertensive Emergency in Aortic Dissection and Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm-A Review of Management

Over the last few decades, treatment for aortic dissection and thoracic aortic aneurysms has evolved significantly with improvement in outcomes. Treatment paradigms include medical, endovascular and surgical options. As aortic dissection presents as a hypertensive emergency, diligent control of BP is of utmost importance in order to reduce the progression of dissection with possible aortic branch malperfusion. Treatment should begin on arrival to the emergency department and continues in the intensive care unit, endovascular suite or the operating room. Novel antihypertensive medications with improved pharmacological profile and improved surgical techniques, have improved the prognosis of patients with aortic aneurysm and/or aortic dissection. Nevertheless, morbidity and mortality remain high and hypertensive emergency poses a significant challenge in aortic dissection and thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Treatment of acute severe hypertension: current and newer agents

Approximately 72 million people in the US experience hypertension. Worldwide, hypertension may affect as many as 1 billion people and be responsible for approximately 7.1 million deaths per year. It is estimated that approximately 1% of patients with hypertension will, at some point, develop a hypertensive crisis. Hypertensive crises are further defined as either hypertensive emergencies or urgencies, depending on the degree of blood pressure elevation and presence of end-organ damage. Immediate reduction in blood pressure is required only in patients with acute end-organ damage (i.e. hypertensive emergency) and requires treatment with a titratable, short-acting, intravenous antihypertensive agent, while severe hypertension without acute end-organ damage (i.e. hypertensive urgency) is usually treated with oral antihypertensive agents. The primary goal of intervention in a hypertensive crisis is to safely reduce blood pressure. The appropriate therapeutic approach of each patient will depend on their clinical presentation. Patients with hypertensive emergencies are best treated in an intensive care unit with titratable, intravenous, hypotensive agents. Rapid-acting intravenous antihypertensive agents are available, including labetalol, esmolol, fenoldopam, nicardipine and sodium nitroprusside. Newer agents, such as clevidipine and fenoldopam, may hold considerable advantages to other available agents in the management of hypertensive crises. Sodium nitroprusside is an extremely toxic drug and its use in the treatment of hypertensive emergencies should be avoided. Similarly, nifedipine, nitroglycerin and hydralazine should not to be considered first-line therapies in the management of hypertensive crises because these agents are associated with significant toxicities and/or adverse effects.

Hypertensive crises: challenges and management

Hypertension affects > 65 million people in the United States and is one of the leading causes of death. One to two percent of patients with hypertension have acute elevations of BP that require urgent medical treatment. Depending on the degree of BP elevation and presence of end-organ damage, severe hypertension can be defined as either a hypertensive emergency or a hypertensive urgency. A hypertensive emergency is associated with acute end-organ damage and requires immediate treatment with a titratable short-acting IV antihypertensive agent. Severe hypertension without acute end-organ damage is referred to as a hypertensive urgency and is usually treated with oral antihypertensive agents. This article reviews definitions, current concepts, common misconceptions, and pitfalls in the diagnosis and management of patients with acutely elevated BP as well as special clinical situations in which BP must be controlled.

Current diagnosis and management of hypertensive emergency

The appropriate and timely evaluation and treatment of patients with severely elevated blood pressure is essential to avoid serious adverse outcomes. Most importantly, the distinction between a hypertensive emergency (crisis) and urgency needs to be made. A sudden elevation in systolic (SBP) and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) that is associated with acute end organ damage (cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or renal) is defined as a hypertensive crisis or emergency. In contrast, acute elevation in SBP and/or DBP not associated with evidence of end organ damage is defined as hypertensive urgency. In patients with a hypertensive emergency, blood pressure control should be attained as expeditiously as possible with parenteral medications to prevent ongoing and potentially permanent end organ damage. In contrast, with hypertensive urgency, blood pressure control can be achieved with the use of oral medications within 24-48 hours. This paper reviews the management of hypertensive emergencies.

Clinical review: the management of hypertensive crises

Hypertension is an extremely common clinical problem, affecting approximately 50 million people in the USA and approximately 1 billion individuals worldwide. Approximately 1% of these patients will develop acute elevations in blood pressure at some point in their lifetime. A number of terms have been applied to severe hypertension, including hypertensive crises, emergencies, and urgencies. By definition, acute elevations in blood pressure that are associated with end-organ damage are called hypertensive crises. Immediate reduction in blood pressure is required only in patients with acute end-organ damage. This article reviews current concepts, and common misconceptions and pitfalls in the diagnosis and management of patients with acutely elevated blood pressure.

Current concepts in the management of hypertensive crisis: emergencies and urgencies

Hypertensive emergencies and hypertensive urgencies represent a large percentage of major medical emergencies and have the potential of producing serious organ damage or death if not treated promptly and selectively. Several classifications of antihypertensive agents are discussed, with emphasis on selecting agents appropriate for patients' hypertension manifestations and comorbid situations. Epidemiology and evaluation of hypertension, as well as common pharmacokinetics of several common and new oral and parenteral antihypertensive agents, are described. Special nursing considerations of medication administration and gerontology concepts are included.

The diagnosis and management of hypertensive crises

Severe hypertension is a common clinical problem in the United States, encountered in various clinical settings. Although various terms have been applied to severe hypertension, such as hypertensive crises, emergencies, or urgencies, they are all characterized by acute elevations in BP that may be associated with end-organ damage (hypertensive crisis). The immediate reduction of BP is only required in patients with acute end-organ damage. Hypertension associated with cerebral infarction or intracerebral hemorrhage only rarely requires treatment. While nitroprusside is commonly used to treat severe hypertension, it is an extremely toxic drug that should only be used in rare circumstances. Furthermore, the short-acting calcium channel blocker nifedipine is associated with significant morbidity and should be avoided. Today, a wide range of pharmacologic alternatives are available to the practitioner to control severe hypertension. This article reviews some of the current concepts and common misconceptions in the management of patients with acutely elevated BP.

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.

Evaluation of drug therapy for treatment of hypertensive urgencies in the emergency department

Oral nifedipine (N) and clonidine (C) are often used in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies; however, until recently, there were no comparative studies using the same patient population. The authors reviewed the records of hypertensive patients treated in the emergency department between October 1, 1987 and September 30, 1988. Selected patients had a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of greater than 115 mm Hg without evidence of acute end organ damage. Patients were stratified into three treatment groups: N, C, and group 3 (G3). G3 received a variety of drug therapies but not exclusively N or C. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), DBP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), percent decrease in MAP (%MAP), time to lower blood pressure, admissions, and discharges were evaluated. Efficacy and safety were defined as reaching a DBP less than 110 mm Hg but %MAP of no greater than either 25% or 40%, respectively. Thirty-five N, 32 C, and 27 G3 patients were identified with no statistical difference between groups in race, gender, pretreatment SBP, DBP, or MAP. N, C, and G3 significantly reduced SBP, DBP, and MAP (P less than .01). Comparing N, C, and G3, no differences were observed in %MAP, admissions, discharges, efficacy, or safety. Time required to decrease blood pressure differed between all three groups (44 +/- 32 N v 77 +/- 57 C v 152 +/- 94 min G3) (p less than .05). These results indicate that N, C, and a variety of drug therapies are equally effective and safe in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies.

Subcutaneous administration of nifedipine

Contents of a 10 mg nifedipine capsule (0.33 ml) were withdrawn by syringe and administered subcutaneously to a patient with hypertensive urgency due to misinterpretation of a physician's order. The drug apparently had its desired hypotensive effect and no adverse effects were noted. The literature on use of nifedipine in hypertensive urgency is reviewed. Subcutaneous administration is not recommended because of a lack of suitable controlled studies and the potential for adverse effects.