Kaitlin J Armstrong, Kelly Shepard, Michelle Horsfield, Alexander R Levine, David M O'Sullivan, Abigail L Zeiner
{"title":"氯维地平与尼卡地平对降压时间在范围内的影响","authors":"Kaitlin J Armstrong, Kelly Shepard, Michelle Horsfield, Alexander R Levine, David M O'Sullivan, Abigail L Zeiner","doi":"10.1177/08971900241279638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Two intravenous medications commonly used as first-line therapy for rapid blood pressure control are nicardipine and clevidipine, both of which are available as titratable infusions. Despite pharmacokinetic differences, no data clearly support a preferred agent. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes associated with current use of these medications across a variety of indications in a hospital system. <b>Methods:</b> This study was a multi-center, retrospective chart review conducted within a hospital system from June 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Records of patients were matched in a one-to-one fashion based on indication for blood pressure control and similar pre-intervention blood pressure. The primary outcome was time within target blood pressure range. <b>Results:</b> A total of 569 patients were screened, resulting in 100 matched pairs. The percent of time in blood pressure range was similar between nicardipine and clevidipine when stratified by location of care (51.5% vs 51.7%, <i>P</i> = 0.970 for ED; 68.1% vs 68.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.913 for ICU). Overall, the median (IQR) time to target blood pressure range was significantly faster with clevidipine than nicardipine [20 (7-43) min. vs 34 (14.5-57) min., resp.; <i>P</i> = 0.013). There were numerically higher rates of hypotension with nicardipine than clevidipine, but this finding was not significant (17% vs 10%; <i>P</i> = 0.093). <b>Conclusions:</b> This study shows a statistically significant difference in time to target blood pressure range with clevidipine compared to nicardipine. Although there was no difference in the percentage of time in blood pressure range, nicardipine was associated with a non-significant increase in the incidence of hypotension.</p>","PeriodicalId":16818,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy practice","volume":" ","pages":"256-263"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Clevidipine Versus Nicardipine on Time in Range when Lowering Blood Pressure.\",\"authors\":\"Kaitlin J Armstrong, Kelly Shepard, Michelle Horsfield, Alexander R Levine, David M O'Sullivan, Abigail L Zeiner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08971900241279638\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Two intravenous medications commonly used as first-line therapy for rapid blood pressure control are nicardipine and clevidipine, both of which are available as titratable infusions. Despite pharmacokinetic differences, no data clearly support a preferred agent. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes associated with current use of these medications across a variety of indications in a hospital system. <b>Methods:</b> This study was a multi-center, retrospective chart review conducted within a hospital system from June 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Records of patients were matched in a one-to-one fashion based on indication for blood pressure control and similar pre-intervention blood pressure. The primary outcome was time within target blood pressure range. <b>Results:</b> A total of 569 patients were screened, resulting in 100 matched pairs. The percent of time in blood pressure range was similar between nicardipine and clevidipine when stratified by location of care (51.5% vs 51.7%, <i>P</i> = 0.970 for ED; 68.1% vs 68.8%, <i>P</i> = 0.913 for ICU). Overall, the median (IQR) time to target blood pressure range was significantly faster with clevidipine than nicardipine [20 (7-43) min. vs 34 (14.5-57) min., resp.; <i>P</i> = 0.013). There were numerically higher rates of hypotension with nicardipine than clevidipine, but this finding was not significant (17% vs 10%; <i>P</i> = 0.093). <b>Conclusions:</b> This study shows a statistically significant difference in time to target blood pressure range with clevidipine compared to nicardipine. Although there was no difference in the percentage of time in blood pressure range, nicardipine was associated with a non-significant increase in the incidence of hypotension.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of pharmacy practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"256-263\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of pharmacy practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900241279638\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacy practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900241279638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:尼卡地平和氯维地平是两种常用的静脉注射药物,可作为快速控制血压的一线疗法。尽管这两种药物的药代动力学存在差异,但没有数据明确支持首选哪一种药物。目的评估目前在医院系统中使用这两种药物的各种适应症的疗效和安全性结果。研究方法本研究是一项多中心、回顾性病历审查,于 2020 年 6 月 1 日至 2021 年 6 月 30 日在一家医院系统内进行。根据血压控制的适应症和干预前的相似血压,对患者的记录进行一对一匹配。主要结果是血压控制在目标范围内的时间。结果共筛查了 569 名患者,配对 100 对。按治疗地点分层后,尼卡地平和氯维地平在血压范围内的时间百分比相似(急诊室为 51.5% vs 51.7%,P = 0.970;重症监护室为 68.1% vs 68.8%,P = 0.913)。总体而言,氯维地平达到目标血压范围的中位(IQR)时间明显快于尼卡地平[20 (7-43) min. vs 34 (14.5-57) min., resp.; P = 0.013]。尼卡地平比氯维地平有更高的低血压发生率,但这一结果并不显著(17% vs 10%;P = 0.093)。结论:本研究显示,与尼卡地平相比较,氯维地平达到目标血压范围的时间在统计学上有显著差异。虽然在血压范围内的时间百分比没有差异,但尼卡地平会导致低血压发生率的增加,且无显著性。
Impact of Clevidipine Versus Nicardipine on Time in Range when Lowering Blood Pressure.
Background: Two intravenous medications commonly used as first-line therapy for rapid blood pressure control are nicardipine and clevidipine, both of which are available as titratable infusions. Despite pharmacokinetic differences, no data clearly support a preferred agent. Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes associated with current use of these medications across a variety of indications in a hospital system. Methods: This study was a multi-center, retrospective chart review conducted within a hospital system from June 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Records of patients were matched in a one-to-one fashion based on indication for blood pressure control and similar pre-intervention blood pressure. The primary outcome was time within target blood pressure range. Results: A total of 569 patients were screened, resulting in 100 matched pairs. The percent of time in blood pressure range was similar between nicardipine and clevidipine when stratified by location of care (51.5% vs 51.7%, P = 0.970 for ED; 68.1% vs 68.8%, P = 0.913 for ICU). Overall, the median (IQR) time to target blood pressure range was significantly faster with clevidipine than nicardipine [20 (7-43) min. vs 34 (14.5-57) min., resp.; P = 0.013). There were numerically higher rates of hypotension with nicardipine than clevidipine, but this finding was not significant (17% vs 10%; P = 0.093). Conclusions: This study shows a statistically significant difference in time to target blood pressure range with clevidipine compared to nicardipine. Although there was no difference in the percentage of time in blood pressure range, nicardipine was associated with a non-significant increase in the incidence of hypotension.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Pharmacy Practice offers the practicing pharmacist topical, important, and useful information to support pharmacy practice and pharmaceutical care and expand the pharmacist"s professional horizons. The journal is presented in a single-topic, scholarly review format. Guest editors are selected for expertise in the subject area, who then recruit contributors from that practice or topic area.