Clinical Features and Management of Selected Hypertensive Emergencies

Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Hypertensive Emergency

Background Hypertensive emergencies represent high-cardiovascular-risk situations defined by severe increases in blood pressure. The prevalence of hypertension in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is higher compared to STEMI and there is a lack of studies on NSTEMI patients with hypertensive emergencies. Patients with diabetes exhibited a higher rate of hypertensive emergencies. This study's primary aim was to investigate the coronary artery disease profile in hypertensive emergency patients with NSTEMI, and the secondary aim was to determine the impact of diabetes on the development of hypertensive emergencies. Methodology A total of 100 patients with NSTEMI and hypertensive emergency presenting to the hospital were enrolled in the study. The duration of the study was 24 months. The patients were also sub-grouped into diabetic and nondiabetic. Baseline characteristics were noted, and coronary angiogram and renal angiogram were also done. Based on variables, the chi-square test and t-test were employed to assess the significance. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The mean age at presentation for patients with NSTEMI and hypertensive emergency was 58 years. Patients consuming alcohol were slightly higher (28, 28%) than those who smoked (23, 23%). Among all, 48 (48%) patients had diabetes. When considering the number of vessels, diabetic patients had more single-vessel diseases (18, 37.5%) and nondiabetic patients had more double-vessel diseases (15, 28.8%). The mean ejection fraction of the diabetic group was 56.1% ± 6.8% and the nondiabetic group was 54.2% ± 7.7%. Among all the patients, 52 (62.6%) used combination drugs, while 39 (46.9%) were on defaulter drugs. Conclusions Several risk factors like age, smoking, alcohol, and nonadherence to drugs were found to have an association with the occurrence of hypertensive emergency. Diabetes was found to be significantly associated with unfavorable coronary anatomy among the population.

Naphthalimide functionalized metal-organic framework for rapid and nanomolar level detection of hydrazine and anti-hypertensive drug nicardipine

The increasing utilization of hydrazine and its derivatives across diverse sectors highlights the pressing need for efficient detection methods to safeguard human health and the environment. Likewise, nicardipine, a widely used medication for heart diseases, necessitates accurate sensing techniques for clinical research and therapeutic monitoring. Here, we propose a novel approach using a naphthalimide-functionalized Zr-MOF as a fluorometric probe capable of detecting both hydrazine and nicardipine in aqueous medium. Our designed probe exhibited a significant 31-fold increase in fluorescence intensity upon interaction with hydrazine. At the same time, nicardipine induced 86% fluorescence quenching with an exceptionally rapid response time (100 s for hydrazine and 5 s for nicardipine). The designed probe has the ability to detect both analytes at nanomolar concentrations (LOD for hydrazine is 1.11 nM while that for nicardipine is 9.6 nM). Investigation across various wastewater samples and pH conditions further validated its practical utility. The mechanism behind fluorometric sensing of nicardipine was thoroughly investigated using modern instrumentation. Our study presents a versatile and effective approach for detecting hydrazine and nicardipine, addressing crucial needs in both industrial and biomedical contexts.

Association of anaemia with long-term mortality among patients with hypertensive crisis in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is frequent in patients with cardiovascular disease and is significantly associated with poor prognosis. However, the prognostic significance of anaemia in hypertensive crisis remains unknown. We conducted this study to determine whether anaemia is a risk factor for all-cause mortality in patients with hypertensive crisis visiting the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who visited the ED between 2016 and 2019 for hypertensive crisis, which was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥180 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥110 mmHg. A total of 5,512 patients whose serum haemoglobin levels were checked were included in this study and were classified into three groups according to their serum haemoglobin levels at admission to the ED: moderate/severe anaemia (haemoglobin <11 g/dL), mild anaemia (haemoglobin 11 to <13 g/dL in men and 11 to <12 g/dL in women), and non-anaemia (haemoglobin ≥13 g/dL in men and ≥12 g/dL in women).

RESULTS

Among 5,512 patients, 665 (12.1%) and 668 (12.1%) were classified into the moderate/severe anaemia and mild anaemia groups, respectively. The three-year all-cause mortality rates in the moderate/severe anaemia, mild anaemia, and non-anaemia groups were 46.0, 29.2, and 12.0%, respectively. After accounting for relevant covariates, patients with moderate/severe anaemia group (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-2.64) and mild anaemia group (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.63) had a higher risk of 3-year all-cause mortality than the non-anaemia group.

CONCLUSION

Anaemia is independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality in patients with hypertensive crisis. A comprehensive therapeutic approach through more in-depth examination and close follow up are required for patients with hypertensive crisis with anaemia.KEY MESSAGESAnaemia is independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality in patients with hypertensive crisis.A comprehensive therapeutic approach through more in-depth examination and close follow up are required for patients with hypertensive crisis with anaemia.

An Updated Review of Hypertensive Emergencies and Urgencies

A hypertensive crisis is an abrupt and severe rise in the arterial blood pressure (BP) occurring either in patients with known essential or secondary hypertension, or it may develop spontaneously. The most frequent cause for the severe and sudden increase in BP is inadequate dosing or stopping antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive patients. Severe hypertension can be defined as either a hypertensive emergency or an urgency, depending on the existence of organ damage. In hypertensive urgencies, there are no signs of acute end-organ damage, and orally administered drugs might be sufficient. In hypertensive emergencies, signs of acute end-organ damage are present, and in these cases, quickly-acting parenteral drugs must be used. The prompt recognition, assessment, and treatment of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies can decrease target organ damage and mortality. In this review, the definitions and therapeutic recommendations in a hypertensive crisis are presented in the light of the 2017 ACC/AHA Hypertension Guidelines.

Cardiovascular Hypertensive Crisis: Recent Evidence and Review of the Literature

Despite the high prevalence of hypertension (HTN), only a small proportion of the hypertensive patients will ultimately develop hypertensive crisis. In fact, some patients with hypertensive crisis do not report a history of HTN or previous use of antihypertensive medication. The majority of the patients with hypertensive crisis often report non-specific symptoms, whereas heart-related symptoms (dyspnea, chest pain, arrhythmias, and syncope) are less common. Hypertensive crises can be divided into hypertensive emergencies or hypertensive urgencies according to the presence or absence of acute target organ damage, respectively. This differentiation is an extremely useful classification in clinical practice since a different management is needed, which in turn has a significant effect on the morbidity and mortality of these patients. Therefore, it is very crucial for the physician in the emergency department to identify the hypertensive emergencies and to manage them through blood pressure lowering medications in order to avoid further target organ damage or deterioration. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the recent evidence in an effort to improve the awareness, recognition, risk stratification, and treatment of hypertensive crisis in patients referred to the emergency department.

Trends in the Incidence of Hypertensive Emergencies in US Emergency Departments From 2006 to 2013

Background

The incidence of hypertensive emergency in US emergency departments (ED) is not well established.

Methods and Results

This study is a descriptive epidemiological analysis of nationally representative ED visit‐level data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample for 2006–2013. Nationwide Emergency Department Sample is a publicly available database maintained by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. An ED visit was considered to be a hypertensive emergency if it met all the following criteria: diagnosis of acute hypertension, at least 1 diagnosis indicating acute target organ damage, and qualifying disposition (admission to the hospital, death, or transfer to another facility). The incidence of adult ED visits for acute hypertension increased monotonically in the period from 2006 through 2013, from 170 340 (1820 per million adult ED visits overall) to 496 894 (4610 per million). Hypertensive emergency was rare overall, accounting for 63 406 visits (677 per million adult ED visits overall) in 2006 to 176 769 visits (1670 per million) in 2013. Among adult ED visits that had any diagnosis of hypertension, hypertensive emergency accounted for 3309 per million in 2006 and 6178 per million in 2013.

Conclusions

The estimated number of visits for hypertensive emergency and the rate per million adult ED visits has more than doubled from 2006 to 2013. However, hypertensive emergencies are rare overall, occurring in about 2 in 1000 adult ED visits overall, and 6 in 1000 adult ED visits carrying any diagnosis of hypertension in 2013. This figure is far lower than what has been sometimes cited in previous literature.

An Update on Inpatient Hypertension Management

Hypertension is highly prevalent affecting nearly one third of the US adult population. Though generally approached as an outpatient disorder, elevated blood pressure is observed in a majority of hospitalized patients. The spectrum of hypertensive disease ranges from patients with hypertensive emergency including markedly elevated blood pressure and associated end-organ damage to asymptomatic patients with minimally elevated pressures of unclear significance. It is important to note that current evidence-based hypertension guidelines do not specifically address inpatient hypertension. This narrative review focuses primarily on best practices for diagnosing and managing nonemergent hypertension in the inpatient setting. We describe examples of common hypertensive syndromes, provide suggestions for optimal post-acute management, and point to evidence-based or consensus guidelines where available. In addition, we describe a practical approach to managing asymptomatic elevated blood pressure observed in the inpatient setting. Finally, arranging effective care transitions to ensure optimal ongoing hypertension management is appropriate in all cases.

Patients with hypertensive crises who are admitted to a coronary care unit: clinical characteristics and outcomes

Patients with hypertensive crises, especially hypertensive emergencies, require immediate admittance to an intensive care unit for rapid blood pressure (BP) control. The authors analyzed the prevalence of hypertensive crisis, the clinical characteristics, and the evolution of patients with hypertensive emergencies and urgencies. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to their BP values: group I, predominant systolic hypertension (≥180/≤119 mm Hg); group II, severe systolic and diastolic hypertension (≥180/≥120 mm Hg); and group III, predominant diastolic hypertension (≤179/≥120 mm Hg). Of all of the patients admitted to a coronary care unit, 538 experienced a hypertensive crisis, which represented 5.08% of all admissions. Hypertensive emergency was predominant in 76.6% of the cases, which corresponded to acute coronary syndrome and acute decompensated heart failure in 59.5% and 25.2% of the cases, respectively. A pattern of predominant systolic hypertension (≥180/≤119 mm Hg) was most commonly observed in the hypertensive crisis group (71.4%) and the hypertensive emergency group (72.1%). The medications that were most commonly used at onset included intravenous vasodilators (nitroglycerin in 63.4% and sodium nitroprusside in 16.4% of the patients). The overall mortality rate was 3.7%. The mortality rate was 4.6% for hypertensive emergency cases and 0.8% for hypertensive urgencies cases.

Hypertension crisis in the emergency department

Hypertensive crises, which include hypertensive emergencies and urgencies, are frequently encountered in the emergency department, and require immediate attention as they can lead to irreversible end-organ damage. Normal blood pressure (BP) regulation is altered during acute rises in BP, leading to end-organ damage. Multiple organs can be injured. Special considerations should be given to hypertensive pregnant patients and patients with postoperative hypertension. Treatment should be individualized to each patient based on the type and extent of end-organ damage, degree of BP elevation, and the specific side effects that each medication could have on a patient's preexisting comorbidities.

Pharmacological management of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies: focus on newer agents

INTRODUCTION

Hypertensive crises are categorized as hypertensive emergencies and urgencies depending on the presence of acute target-organ damage; the former are potentially life-threatening medical conditions, requiring urgent treatment under close monitoring. Although several short-acting intravenous antihypertensive agents are approved for this purpose, until recently little evidence from proper trials on the relative merits of different therapies was available.

AREAS COVERED

This article discusses in brief the pathophysiology, epidemiology and diagnostic approach of hypertensive crises and provides an extensive overview of established and emerging pharmacological agents for the treatment of patients with hypertensive emergencies and urgencies.

EXPERT OPINION

Agents such as sodium nitroprusside, nitroglycerin and hydralazine have been used for many years as first-line options for patients with hypertensive emergencies, although their potential adverse effects and difficulties in use were well known. With time, equally potent and less toxic alternatives, including nicardipine, fenoldopam, labetalol and esmolol are increasingly used worldwide. Recently, clevidipine, a third-generation dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker with unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties was added to our therapeutic armamentarium and was shown in clinical trials to reduce mortality when compared with nitroprusside. In view of such evidence, a change in pharmacological treatment practices for hypertensive crises toward newer and safer agents is warranted.

Urapidil: management of complicated hypertensive crises and effects on renal function. Therapeutist’s view

Aim.To compare the effectiveness of urapidil and enalaprilat in cardiac patients with complicated hypertensive crise (HC), including the effect of the medications on renal function.Material and methods.During 6 months, 70 patients with essential arterial hypertension (EAH), hospitalised with a diagnosis of complicated HC, were included in the study.Results.The therapy response rates were significantly higher in the urapidil vs. enalaprilat group (96,7% vs. 73,3%,p<0,001). During the first hour of the urapidil treatment, the levels of systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased from 210,5±13,6 to 157,8±8,3 mm Hg (p<0,05), while the levels of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decreased from 115,7±8,5 to 86,9±9,1 mm Hg (p<0,05). In the enalaprilat group, the respective SBP and DBP reduction was from 208,1 to 182,5 mm Hg (p<0,05) and from 114,8 to 95,0 mm Hg (p<0,05). Mean BP levels in the urapidil and enalaprilat groups decreased from 147,3±6,3 to 101,7±6,4 mm Hg and from 145,9±6,1 to 118,4±7,3 mm Hg, respectively. Over 6 hours, urapidil group patients demonstrated a more prolonged, sustained antihypertensive effect. Both medications did not affect heart rate (HR) levels. In neither group, clinically significant adverse effects were registered. The changes in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) or natriuresis were non-significant. Since after 6 hours, the patients were administered other combination therapy, the risk of acute vascular events was assessed during the following hours (up to 72 hours). No cases of acute cerebrovascular events or acute myocardial infarction were registered in either study group.Conclusion.Urapidil was more effective than enalaprilat in terms of responder number per 1 dose or BP reduction rate. Both medications did not affect HR, GFR, or natriuresis.

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.

Management of hypertensive emergencies in acute brain disease: evaluation of the treatment effects of intravenous nicardipine on cerebral oxygenation

Object

Inappropriate sudden blood pressure (BP) reductions may adversely affect cerebral perfusion. This study explores the effect of nicardipine on regional brain tissue O2 (PbtO2) during treatment of acute hypertensive emergencies.

Methods

A prospective case–control study was performed in 30 patients with neurological conditions and clinically elevated BP. All patients had a parenchymal PbtO2 and intracranial pressure bolt inserted following resuscitation. Using a critical care guide, PbtO2 was optimized. Intravenous nicardipine (5–15 mg/hour) was titrated to systolic BP < 160 mm Hg, diastolic BP < 90 mm Hg, mean arterial BP (MABP) 90–110 mm Hg, and PbtO2 > 20 mm Hg. Physiological parameters—intracranial pressure, PbtO2, central venous pressure, systolic BP, diastolic BP, MABP, fraction of inspired O2, and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP)—were compared before infusion, at 4 hours, and at 8 hours using a t-test.

Results

Sixty episodes of hypertension were reported in 30 patients (traumatic brain injury in 13 patients; aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in 11; intracerebral and intraventricular hemorrhage in 3 and 1, respectively; arteriovenous malformation in 1; and hypoxic brain injury in 1). Nicardipine was effective in 87% of the patients (with intravenous β blockers in 4 patients), with a 19.7% reduction in mean 4-hour MABP (115.3 ± 13.1 mm Hg preinfusion vs 92.9 ± 11.40 mm Hg after 4 hours of therapy, p < 0.001). No deleterious effect on mean PbtO2 was recorded (26.74 ± 15.42 mm Hg preinfusion vs 27.68 ± 12.51 mm Hg after 4 hours of therapy, p = 0.883) despite significant reduction in CPP. Less dependence on normobaric hyperoxia was achieved at 8 hours (0.72 ± 0.289 mm Hg preinfusion vs 0.626 ± 0.286 mm Hg after 8 hours of therapy, p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that 12 patients had low pretreatment PbtO2 (10.30 ± 6.49 mm Hg), with higher CPP (p < 0.001) requiring hyperoxia (p = 0.02). In this group, intravenous nicardipine resulted in an 83% improvement in 4- and 8-hour PbtO2 levels (18.1 ± 11.33 and 19.59 ± 23.68 mm Hg, respectively; p < 0.01) despite significant reductions in both mean MABP (120.6 ± 16.65 vs 95.8 ± 8.3 mm Hg, p < 0.001) and CPP (105.00 ± 20.7 vs 81.2 ± 15.4 mm Hg, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Intravenous nicardipine is effective for the treatment of hypertensive neurological emergencies and has no adverse effect on PbtO2.

A novel pathway for the management of hypertension for hospitalized patients

About 65 million Americans, one fourth of the adult population in the United States, and over 1 billion people worldwide have hypertension (HTN). HTN therefore is present in 1 of every 4 patients admitted to any US hospital. Surprisingly, no guidelines are available for the management of inpatient HTN. Based on a comprehensive search of the literature we are proposing a pathway for the management of HTN in nonpregnant hospitalized patients. The pathway provides a definition and clinical assessment of HTN for patients admitted to the hospital. The assessment is followed by an organ/system based therapeutic approach specifying timing, blood pressure goals, recommended antihypertensive drug therapy and the sequence of add-on drugs. The pathway specifically discusses assessment and management of HTN in patients with (1) acute aortic syndrome, (2) acute neurologic syndrome, (3) acute coronary syndrome, (4) congestive heart failure, (5) renal failure, and (6) secondary forms. Finally, the pathway provides a step by step recommendation for the management of in hospital HTN and of hypertensive emergencies.

The Emerging Epidemic of Methamphetamine-Induced Aortic Dissections

The clinical presentation, treatment, and outcomes of six consecutive patients presenting with acute aortic dissection secondary to hypertensive crises from methamphetamine use is described. Data were obtained prospectively from the expanded STS clinical database of the division of cardiothoracic surgery at the University of Washington, but reviewed in a retrospective fashion. These patients represent 5.5% of all patients diagnosed and treated for aortic dissection in the same time period (6/109) and 20% of all patients with aortic dissection under the age of 50 years (6/30). We conclude that young patients (<age 50 years old) presenting with acute aortic dissections should be routinely tested for methamphetamine. Positive urine tests should be confirmed with chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Beta and alpha blockers should be used instead of the more typical beta blockade alone. We recommend the addition and documentation of intense, long-term drug rehabilitation program along with routine periodic clinical and radiographic follow-up to prevent secondary aneurysmal dilation of remaining pathological aorta.

Systemic hypertension

Hypertension is a growing public health problem worldwide. Only 37% of American hypertensives currently have their blood pressures controlled. Hypertension is traditionally diagnosed in the medical office, but both home and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring can help. Lifestyle modifications are recommended for everyone who has higher than "normal" blood pressure (<120/80 mm Hg). Voluminous clinical trial data support beginning drug therapy with low-dose chlorthalidone, unless the patient has a specific indication for a different drug. Additional drugs (typically in the sequence, angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, calcium antagonist, beta-blocker, alpha-blocker, aldosterone antagonist, direct vasodilator, and centrally acting alpha(2)-agonist) can be added to achieve the blood pressure goal (usually <140/90 mm Hg, but <130/80 mm Hg for diabetics and those with chronic kidney disease). Special circumstances exist for treatment of hypertension in pregnancy, in childhood, in the elderly, and in both extremes of blood pressure (pre-hypertension or hypertensive emergencies).

Management of hypertensive crises

Hypertensive emergencies are life-threatening conditions because their course is complicated with acute target organ damage. They can present with neurological, renal, cardiovascular, microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, and obstetric complications. After diagnosis, they require the immediate reduction of blood pressure (in <1 hour) with intravenous drugs such as sodium nitroprusside, administered in an intensive care unit. These patients present with a mean arterial pressure >140 mm Hg and grade III to IV retinopathy. Only occasionally do they have hypertensive encephalopathy, reflecting cerebral hyperperfusion, loss of autoregulation, and disruption of the blood-brain barrier. In hypertensive emergencies, blood pressure should be reduced about 10% during the first hour and another 15% gradually over the next 2 to 3 hours to prevent cerebral hypoperfusion. The exception to this management strategy is aortic dissection, for which the target is systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg after 20 minutes. Oral antihypertensive therapy can usually be instituted after 6 to 12 hours of parenteral therapy. Hypertensive urgencies are severe elevations of blood pressure without evidence of acute and progressive dysfunction of target organs. They demand adequate control of blood pressure within 24 hours to several days with use of orally administered agents. The purpose of this review is to provide a rational approach to hypertensive crisis management.

Hypertension in the intensive care unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The severity of hypertensive crises is determined by the presence of target organ damage rather than the level of blood pressure. Hypertensive urgencies with no signs of organ dysfunction can therefore be distinguished from hypertensive emergencies in which the presence of severe end-organ damage requires prompt therapy. Hypertensive emergencies include acute aortic dissection, hypertensive encephalopathy, acute myocardial ischaemia, severe pulmonary oedema, eclampsia, and acute renal failure.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Malignant hypertension is a severe form of hypertensive emergency demanding special consideration because of the risks of permanent blindness and renal failure. Catecholamine excess and postoperative hypertension may also sometimes require urgent treatment. The management of patients with hypertensive emergencies must be ensured in an intensive care unit, and must include the parenteral administration of antihypertensive drugs and accurate blood pressure monitoring.

SUMMARY

Except for acute aortic dissection, the recommended goals of treatment are a reduction of mean arterial pressure by no more than 20% during the first few hours, because an abrupt fall in blood pressure in patients with preexisting hypertension may induce severe ischaemic injury in major organs as a result of the chronic adaptation of autoregulation mechanisms. Hypertension in the context of acute stroke should be treated only rarely and cautiously because of the presence of impaired autoregulation.

Managing Emergency Hypertension in Aortic Dissection and Aortic Aneurysm Surgery

From a disease that just a few decades ago carried an ominous prognosis, aortic dissection has become a highly treatable condition. Similar development has occurred in regard to the treatment of thoracic aortic aneurysms. Treatment options are medical, surgical, or endovascular. Aortic dissection always presents as a hypertensive emergency and requires parenteral antihypertensive agents to control blood pressure (BP) and prevent target organ damage. Diligent control of BP is of utmost importance in order to stop the progression of dissection with possible aortic branch malperfusion. Treatment for hypertensive emergency begins in the intensive care unit and continues during and after surgery. Improved surgical techniques as well as newer, safer agents that reduce BP to acceptable levels have reduced the risk of mortality and improved prognosis in the postoperative period. Nevertheless, mortality rates remain high, and successful management of aortic dissection and aortic aneurysm still poses a clinical challenge.