Dose-response evaluation of oral labetalol in patients presenting to the emergency department with accelerated hypertension

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.

Comprehensive management of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies

Despite advances in chronic hypertension management, hypertensive emergencies and urgencies remain as serious complications. Much of this relates to poor compliance with effective antihypertensive management. Hypertensive emergencies and urgencies can also be seen as the initial manifestations of hypertension in pregnancy and in the perioperative period. Multiple classes of intravenous antihypertensive drugs are available to treat hypertensive emergencies, and specific agents may have an advantage in a given clinical situation. Orally active agents are used to treat hypertensive urgencies, and include clonidine, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and labetalol. Most patients respond to drug therapy, but problems may arise related to a rapid normalization of blood pressure.

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.

Management of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies

Hypertensive emergency is a condition in which there is elevation of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure with the presence of acute target organ disease. Hypertensive urgency is a condition where the blood pressure is elevated (diastolic > 120 mmHg) with the absence of acute target organ disease. Hypertensive emergencies are best managed with parenteral drugs and careful intraarterial blood pressure monitoring. Hydralazine has been widely used in treatment of hypertension in eclampsia and preeclampsia, and its safety has been demonstrated in these patients. Sodium nitroprusside (SNP) has the most reliable antihypertensive activity, which begins immediately after its administration and ends when the infusion is stopped. As with diazoxide, it should be used with caution in patients with impaired cerebral flow. SNP is the preferred drug in obtaining controlled hypotension in patients undergoing neurovascular surgery. Intravenous nitroglycerin is useful in patients prone to myocardial ischemia, but should be avoided in patients with increased intracranial pressure. Esmolol is effective in controlling both supraventricular tachyarrhythmias and severe hypertension. Its short onset of duration of action make it useful in the emergent setting, but because of its negative inotropic effect its use should be avoided in patients with low cardiac output. Verapamil should not be used in patients with preexisting conduction abnormalities. Nicardipine is a potent arteriolar vasodilator without a significant direct depressant effect on myocardium. As with other afterload reducing agents, it should not be used in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Because angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors generally cause cerebral vasodilatation, enalaprilat may be particularly beneficial for patients who are at high risk of developing cerebral hypotensive episodes secondary to impaired cerebral circulation. Fenoldopam, a selective post-synaptic dopaminergic receptor (DA1) has been shown to be effective in treating severe hypertension with a lower incidence of side effects than SNP. Hypertensive urgencies can usually be managed with oral agents. Oral nifedipine, captopril, clonidine, labetalol, prazosin, and nimodipine have all been shown to be effective in these situations.

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.

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.

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)