Medical Management of Aortic Emergencies in Critical Care Transport.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Nicholas H George, Francis X Guyette, Sriram Ramgopal, Nathan L Liang, Christian Martin-Gill
{"title":"Medical Management of Aortic Emergencies in Critical Care Transport.","authors":"Nicholas H George, Francis X Guyette, Sriram Ramgopal, Nathan L Liang, Christian Martin-Gill","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2026.2728128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Aortic emergencies (e.g., dissection or aneurysm; AE) are life-threatening events commonly encountered in critical care transport. Guidelines recommend beta-blockers to control heart rate (HR), with calcium channel blockers added for systolic blood pressure (SBP) control or as an alternative. There is little human data to support either strategy or to document adverse events. We aimed to determine the frequency with which medications commonly used to treat AE reach guideline-recommended hemodynamic targets and characterize adverse events during critical care transport (CCT).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed an observational study design and retrospective cohort analysis of patients ≥18 years old with an AE undergoing CCT between 2003-2024. We included patients who received esmolol, nicardipine, labetalol, or combinations. We evaluated the primary outcome of target HR (60-80 bpm) or SBP (90-120 mmHg) with multivariable logistic regression controlling for age, sex, weight, year, and prior vasoactive medications. Secondary outcomes included hypotension (SBP <90 mmHg), bradycardia (HR <50 bpm), tachycardia (HR >100 bpm), and vasopressor support or cardiac arrest.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 1,530 AE encounters, of which 792 (51.8%) received nicardipine, 236 (15.4%) esmolol, 194 (12.7%) labetalol, 163 (10.7%) esmolol and nicardipine, and 145 (9.5%) labetalol and nicardipine. Compared to esmolol alone, all other treatment strategies had a similar likelihood of achieving target HR or SBP goals. Patients receiving labetalol alone had the lowest incidence of hypotension (2.1% [0.1-4.1%]) and combined esmolol/nicardipine had the lowest incidence of tachycardia (11.0% [6.2-15.9%]). Esmolol compared to nicardipine alone had similar rates of tachycardia (19.1% [14.1-24.1%] versus 25.3% [22.2-28.3%], respectively), while esmolol had the highest incidence of hypotension (9.3% [5.6-13.0%]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We observed a similar odds of achieving HR and SBP targets regardless of medication used in a large sample of patients with aortic emergencies. While a combination of beta and calcium channel blockers may be optimal medical therapy, treatment with esmolol, labetalol, or nicardipine as single agents may be reasonable to achieve HR and SBP goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2026.2728128","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Aortic emergencies (e.g., dissection or aneurysm; AE) are life-threatening events commonly encountered in critical care transport. Guidelines recommend beta-blockers to control heart rate (HR), with calcium channel blockers added for systolic blood pressure (SBP) control or as an alternative. There is little human data to support either strategy or to document adverse events. We aimed to determine the frequency with which medications commonly used to treat AE reach guideline-recommended hemodynamic targets and characterize adverse events during critical care transport (CCT).

Methods: We performed an observational study design and retrospective cohort analysis of patients ≥18 years old with an AE undergoing CCT between 2003-2024. We included patients who received esmolol, nicardipine, labetalol, or combinations. We evaluated the primary outcome of target HR (60-80 bpm) or SBP (90-120 mmHg) with multivariable logistic regression controlling for age, sex, weight, year, and prior vasoactive medications. Secondary outcomes included hypotension (SBP <90 mmHg), bradycardia (HR <50 bpm), tachycardia (HR >100 bpm), and vasopressor support or cardiac arrest.

Results: We included 1,530 AE encounters, of which 792 (51.8%) received nicardipine, 236 (15.4%) esmolol, 194 (12.7%) labetalol, 163 (10.7%) esmolol and nicardipine, and 145 (9.5%) labetalol and nicardipine. Compared to esmolol alone, all other treatment strategies had a similar likelihood of achieving target HR or SBP goals. Patients receiving labetalol alone had the lowest incidence of hypotension (2.1% [0.1-4.1%]) and combined esmolol/nicardipine had the lowest incidence of tachycardia (11.0% [6.2-15.9%]). Esmolol compared to nicardipine alone had similar rates of tachycardia (19.1% [14.1-24.1%] versus 25.3% [22.2-28.3%], respectively), while esmolol had the highest incidence of hypotension (9.3% [5.6-13.0%]).

Conclusions: We observed a similar odds of achieving HR and SBP targets regardless of medication used in a large sample of patients with aortic emergencies. While a combination of beta and calcium channel blockers may be optimal medical therapy, treatment with esmolol, labetalol, or nicardipine as single agents may be reasonable to achieve HR and SBP goals.

重症监护转运中主动脉急症的医学处理。
目的:主动脉急症(如夹层或动脉瘤;AE)是重症监护运输中常见的危及生命的事件。指南推荐使用β受体阻滞剂来控制心率(HR),同时添加钙通道阻滞剂来控制收缩压(SBP)或作为替代。很少有人类数据支持这两种策略或记录不良事件。我们的目的是确定通常用于治疗AE的药物达到指南推荐的血流动力学目标的频率,并确定危重监护转运(CCT)期间不良事件的特征。方法:我们对2003-2024年间≥18岁的AE患者进行了观察性研究设计和回顾性队列分析。我们纳入了接受艾司洛尔、尼卡地平、拉贝他洛尔或联合用药的患者。我们通过控制年龄、性别、体重、年份和既往血管活性药物的多变量logistic回归评估了目标心率(60-80 bpm)或收缩压(90-120 mmHg)的主要结局。次要结局包括低血压(收缩压100 bpm)、血管加压支持或心脏骤停。结果:纳入1530例AE患者,其中尼卡地平792例(51.8%),艾斯洛尔236例(15.4%),拉贝他洛尔194例(12.7%),艾斯洛尔和尼卡地平163例(10.7%),拉贝他洛尔和尼卡地平145例(9.5%)。与单独使用艾司洛尔相比,所有其他治疗策略达到目标心率或收缩压目标的可能性相似。单用拉贝他洛尔组低血压发生率最低(2.1%[0.1-4.1%]),单用艾司洛尔/尼卡地平组心动过速发生率最低(11.0%[6.2-15.9%])。与单独使用尼卡地平相比,艾司洛尔的心动过速发生率相似(分别为19.1%[14.1-24.1%]和25.3%[22.2-28.3%]),而艾司洛尔的低血压发生率最高(9.3%[5.6-13.0%])。结论:我们观察到,在大样本的主动脉急症患者中,无论使用何种药物,达到HR和收缩压目标的几率相似。虽然联合使用-和钙通道阻滞剂可能是最佳的药物治疗方法,但单独使用艾司洛尔、拉贝他洛尔或尼卡地平治疗可能是合理的,可以达到HR和收缩压的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书