Oral labetalol versus oral clonidine in the emergency treatment of severe hypertension

Oral Sedation Anesthesia Protocol for In-Office Oculoplastic Surgery

PURPOSE

To present an oral anesthesia protocol for in-office oculoplastic surgery and to compare safety outcomes and patient and physician experiences to ambulatory surgery center (ASC)-based surgery with intravenous sedation or general anesthesia.

METHODS

A prospective study was performed on consecutive patients undergoing surgery at an oculofacial plastic surgery practice. Surgery was performed in an in-office setting using our standardized oral sedation protocol or at an ASC with intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. Preoperative and postoperative surveys were conducted by patients and physicians to compare surgical experience, safety, and efficacy of our oral sedation protocol for in-office surgery in the ASC setting.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-three patients (167 in-office and 86 at ASC) underwent surgery between March and November 2022. There was no significant difference in how patients or physicians rated their experience between the 2 locations. A significantly higher proportion of ASC patients would have rather had surgery in-office (34.9% vs. 19.2%; p = 0.006). A significantly higher number of physicians in the office setting would have rather performed surgery at the ASC than the reverse (12.7% vs. 2.3%, respectfully; p = 0.007). There were no safety complications reported in either setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Within our patient cohort, the presented oral sedation protocol provided safe and effective anesthesia for in-office oculoplastic surgery that is comparable to an ASC.

The cause-effect relation of tuberculosis on incidence of diabetes mellitus

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the oldest human diseases and is one of the major causes of mortality and morbidity across the Globe. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), the causal agent of TB is one of the most successful pathogens known to mankind. Malnutrition, smoking, co-infection with other pathogens like human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), or conditions like diabetes further aggravate the tuberculosis pathogenesis. The association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and tuberculosis is well known and the immune-metabolic changes during diabetes are known to cause increased susceptibility to tuberculosis. Many epidemiological studies suggest the occurrence of hyperglycemia during active TB leading to impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. However, the mechanisms underlying these effects is not well understood. In this review, we have described possible causal factors like inflammation, host metabolic changes triggered by tuberculosis that could contribute to the development of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. We have also discussed therapeutic management of type 2 diabetes during TB, which may help in designing future strategies to cope with TB-DM cases.

Excessive Blood Pressure Response to Clonidine in Hospitalized Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Hypertension

BACKGROUND

There are limited and nonconcordant data on the rapidity and safety of blood pressure response to clonidine in the setting of asymptomatic severe hypertension. We evaluated the blood pressure response to clonidine in hospitalized patients with asymptomatic severe hypertension.

METHODS

We performed a review of hospitalized, noncritically ill patients receiving clonidine within 6 hours of developing asymptomatic severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] >180 or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >110 mm Hg in the absence of acute hypertension-mediated target organ damage). The incidence of mean arterial pressure (MAP) reduction by ≥30% at 4 hours after clonidine was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

We identified 200 relevant patient encounters (median age 63 years, 48.5% women). Median time to clonidine following asymptomatic severe hypertension was 2.8 hours. A total of 20 (10%) patients had ≥30% MAP reduction within 4 hours after clonidine, and 32 (16%) patients had ≥30% reduction in either SBP, DBP, or MAP. Older age, female sex, and preexisting vascular disease were associated with ≥30% MAP reductions (P < 0.05). Only patient sex and clonidine dose of 0.3 mg were significant in multivariable models. There were 14 adverse events observed within 24 hours of administration of clonidine; most (9) were acute kidney injury. There were no ischemic (myocardial, cerebrovascular) events.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial minority of hospitalized patients with asymptomatic severe hypertension experience precipitous blood pressure decline with clonidine, and though blood pressure declines more precipitously in women and those receiving higher doses (0.3 mg specifically), the response to clonidine is generally not predictable on clinical grounds.

Blood pressure response to commonly administered antihypertensives for severe inpatient hypertension

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) elevations are commonly treated in hospitalized patients; however, treatment is not guideline directed. Our objective was to assess BP response to commonly prescribed antihypertensives after the development of severe inpatient hypertension (HTN).

METHODS

This is a cohort study of adults, excluding intensive care unit patients, within a single healthcare system admitted for reasons other than HTN who developed severe HTN (systolic BP>180 or diastolic BP >110 mmHg at least 1 hour after admission). We identified the most commonly administered antihypertensives given within 6 hours of severe HTN (given to >10% of treated patients). We studied the association of treatment with each antihypertensive vs. no treatment on BP change in the 6 hours following severe HTN development using mixed-effects model after adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 23,147 patients who developed severe HTN, 9,166 received antihypertensive treatment. The most common antihypertensives given were oral metoprolol (n = 1991), oral amlodipine (n = 1812), oral carvedilol (n = 1116), IV hydralazine (n = 1069) and oral hydralazine (n = 953). In the fully adjusted model, treatment with IV hydralazine led to 13 [-15.9, -10.1], 18 [-22.2, -14] and 11 [-14.1, -8.3] mmHg lower MAP, SBP, and DBP in the 6 hours following severe HTN development compared to no treatment. Treatment with oral hydralazine and oral carvedilol also resulted in significantly lower BPs in the 6 hours following severe HTN development (6 [-9.1, -2.1 and -7 [-9.1, -4.2] lower MAP, respectively) compared to no treatment. Receiving metoprolol and amlodipine did not result in a drop in BP compared to no treatment.

CONCLUSION

Among commonly used antihypertensives, IV hydralazine resulted in the most significant drop in BP following severe HTN, while metoprolol and amlodipine did not lower BP. Further research to assess the effect of treatment on clinical outcomes and if needed which antihypertensives to administer are necessary.

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.

An Emergency Department Approach to Drug Treatment of Hypertensive Urgency and Emergency

Patients who present with hypertensive urgency or emergency require immediate attention to assess the severity of illness. Guidelines from the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure are available but do little to address the management of acute elevations in blood pressure. Various treatment options, both old and new, exist to manage these patients in the emergency department. Decisions on therapy are patient specific and depend on the underlying cause of elevated blood pressure. This article sets out to describe specific patient presentations and reviews current available options in the management of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies.

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.

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.