Cargando…

CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION: Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of food and drug administration (FDA) recommended dosing of IV nicardipine versus IV labetalol for the management of acute hypertension. METHODS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients had 2 systolic blood pressure (S...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peacock, W Frank, Varon, Joseph, Baumann, Brigitte M, Borczuk, Pierre, Cannon, Chad M, Chandra, Abhinav, Cline, David M, Diercks, Deborah, Hiestand, Brian, Hsu, A, Jois-Bilowich, Preeti, Kaminski, Brian, Levy, Philip, Nowak, Richard M, Schrock, Jon W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3219031/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21707983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc10289
_version_ 1782216783050047488
author Peacock, W Frank
Varon, Joseph
Baumann, Brigitte M
Borczuk, Pierre
Cannon, Chad M
Chandra, Abhinav
Cline, David M
Diercks, Deborah
Hiestand, Brian
Hsu, A
Jois-Bilowich, Preeti
Kaminski, Brian
Levy, Philip
Nowak, Richard M
Schrock, Jon W
author_facet Peacock, W Frank
Varon, Joseph
Baumann, Brigitte M
Borczuk, Pierre
Cannon, Chad M
Chandra, Abhinav
Cline, David M
Diercks, Deborah
Hiestand, Brian
Hsu, A
Jois-Bilowich, Preeti
Kaminski, Brian
Levy, Philip
Nowak, Richard M
Schrock, Jon W
author_sort Peacock, W Frank
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of food and drug administration (FDA) recommended dosing of IV nicardipine versus IV labetalol for the management of acute hypertension. METHODS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients had 2 systolic blood pressure (SBP) measures ≥180 mmHg and no contraindications to nicardipine or labetalol. Before randomization, the physician specified a target SBP ± 20 mmHg (the target range: TR). The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects meeting TR during the initial 30 minutes of treatment. RESULTS: Of 226 randomized patients, 110 received nicardipine and 116 labetalol. End organ damage preceded treatment in 143 (63.3%); 71 nicardipine and 72 labetalol patients. Median initial SBP was 212.5 (IQR 197, 230) and 212 mmHg (IQR 200,225) for nicardipine and labetalol patients (P = 0.68), respectively. Within 30 minutes, nicardipine patients more often reached TR than labetalol (91.7 vs. 82.5%, P = 0.039). Of 6 BP measures (taken every 5 minutes) during the study period, nicardipine patients had higher rates of five and six instances within TR than labetalol (47.3% vs. 32.8%, P = 0.026). Rescue medication need did not differ between nicardipine and labetalol (15.5 vs. 22.4%, P = 0.183). Labetalol patients had slower heart rates at all time points (P < 0.01). Multivariable modeling showed nicardipine patients were more likely in TR than labetalol patients at 30 minutes (OR 2.73, P = 0.028; C stat for model = 0.72) CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with nicardipine are more likely to reach the physician-specified SBP target range within 30 minutes than those treated with labetalol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00765648
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3219031
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32190312011-11-17 CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department Peacock, W Frank Varon, Joseph Baumann, Brigitte M Borczuk, Pierre Cannon, Chad M Chandra, Abhinav Cline, David M Diercks, Deborah Hiestand, Brian Hsu, A Jois-Bilowich, Preeti Kaminski, Brian Levy, Philip Nowak, Richard M Schrock, Jon W Crit Care Research INTRODUCTION: Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of food and drug administration (FDA) recommended dosing of IV nicardipine versus IV labetalol for the management of acute hypertension. METHODS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial. Eligible patients had 2 systolic blood pressure (SBP) measures ≥180 mmHg and no contraindications to nicardipine or labetalol. Before randomization, the physician specified a target SBP ± 20 mmHg (the target range: TR). The primary endpoint was the percent of subjects meeting TR during the initial 30 minutes of treatment. RESULTS: Of 226 randomized patients, 110 received nicardipine and 116 labetalol. End organ damage preceded treatment in 143 (63.3%); 71 nicardipine and 72 labetalol patients. Median initial SBP was 212.5 (IQR 197, 230) and 212 mmHg (IQR 200,225) for nicardipine and labetalol patients (P = 0.68), respectively. Within 30 minutes, nicardipine patients more often reached TR than labetalol (91.7 vs. 82.5%, P = 0.039). Of 6 BP measures (taken every 5 minutes) during the study period, nicardipine patients had higher rates of five and six instances within TR than labetalol (47.3% vs. 32.8%, P = 0.026). Rescue medication need did not differ between nicardipine and labetalol (15.5 vs. 22.4%, P = 0.183). Labetalol patients had slower heart rates at all time points (P < 0.01). Multivariable modeling showed nicardipine patients were more likely in TR than labetalol patients at 30 minutes (OR 2.73, P = 0.028; C stat for model = 0.72) CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with nicardipine are more likely to reach the physician-specified SBP target range within 30 minutes than those treated with labetalol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00765648 BioMed Central 2011 2011-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC3219031/ /pubmed/21707983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc10289 Text en Copyright ©2011 Peacock et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Peacock, W Frank
Varon, Joseph
Baumann, Brigitte M
Borczuk, Pierre
Cannon, Chad M
Chandra, Abhinav
Cline, David M
Diercks, Deborah
Hiestand, Brian
Hsu, A
Jois-Bilowich, Preeti
Kaminski, Brian
Levy, Philip
Nowak, Richard M
Schrock, Jon W
CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department
title CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department
title_full CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department
title_fullStr CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department
title_full_unstemmed CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department
title_short CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department
title_sort clue: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of iv nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3219031/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21707983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc10289
work_keys_str_mv AT peacockwfrank cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT varonjoseph cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT baumannbrigittem cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT borczukpierre cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT cannonchadm cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT chandraabhinav cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT clinedavidm cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT diercksdeborah cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT hiestandbrian cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT hsua cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT joisbilowichpreeti cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT kaminskibrian cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT levyphilip cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT nowakrichardm cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment
AT schrockjonw cluearandomizedcomparativeeffectivenesstrialofivnicardipineversuslabetaloluseintheemergencydepartment