Cargando…

Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine: A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study—the HYPOTENS trial

BACKGROUND: Sympathomimetic drugs are a therapeutic cornerstone for the management of hypotensive states like intraoperative hypotension (IOH). While cafedrine/theodrenaline (C/T) is widely used in Germany to restore blood pressure in patients with IOH, more research is required to compare its effec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eberhart, L., Geldner, G., Kowark, A., Zucker, T.-P., Kreuer, S., Przemeck, M., Huljic, S., Koch, T., Keller, T., Weber, S., Kranke, P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Medizin 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8026467/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33170310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00101-020-00877-5
_version_ 1783675680351846400
author Eberhart, L.
Geldner, G.
Kowark, A.
Zucker, T.-P.
Kreuer, S.
Przemeck, M.
Huljic, S.
Koch, T.
Keller, T.
Weber, S.
Kranke, P.
author_facet Eberhart, L.
Geldner, G.
Kowark, A.
Zucker, T.-P.
Kreuer, S.
Przemeck, M.
Huljic, S.
Koch, T.
Keller, T.
Weber, S.
Kranke, P.
author_sort Eberhart, L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sympathomimetic drugs are a therapeutic cornerstone for the management of hypotensive states like intraoperative hypotension (IOH). While cafedrine/theodrenaline (C/T) is widely used in Germany to restore blood pressure in patients with IOH, more research is required to compare its effectiveness with alternatives such as ephedrine (E) that are more commonly available internationally. METHODS: HYPOTENS (NCT02893241, DRKS00010740) was a prospective, national, multicenter, open-label, two-armed, non-interventional study that compared C/T with E for treatment of IOH. We describe a prospectively defined cohort of patients ≥50 years old with comorbidities undergoing general anesthesia induced with propofol and fentanyl. Primary objectives were to examine treatment precision, rapidity of onset and the ability to restore blood pressure without relevant increases in heart rate. Secondary endpoints were treatment satisfaction and the number of required additional boluses or other accompanying measures. RESULTS: A total of 1496 patients were included in the per protocol analysis. Overall, effective stabilization of blood pressure was achieved with both C/T and E. Post-hoc analysis showed that blood pressure increase from baseline was more pronounced with C/T. Fewer additional boluses or other accompanying measures were required in the C/T arm. The incidence of tachycardia was comparable between groups. Post-hoc analysis showed that E produced dose-dependent elevated heart rate values. By contrast, heart rate remained stable in patients treated with C/T. Physicians reported a higher level of treatment satisfaction with C/T, with a higher proportion of anesthetists rating treatment precision and rapidity of onset as good or very good when compared with E. CONCLUSION: Neither drug was superior in restoring blood pressure levels; however, post-hoc analyses suggested that treatment is more goal-orientated and easier to control with C/T. Heart rate was shown to be more stable with C/T and fewer additional interventions were required to restore blood pressure, which could have contributed to the increased treatment satisfaction reported by anesthetists using C/T. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00101-020-00877-5) contains one further table and two figures. The article and additional material are available at www.springermedizin.de. Please enter the title of the article in the search field. You will find the additional material under “Ergänzende Inhalte” in the article. [Image: see text]
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8026467
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Medizin
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80264672021-04-26 Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine: A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study—the HYPOTENS trial Eberhart, L. Geldner, G. Kowark, A. Zucker, T.-P. Kreuer, S. Przemeck, M. Huljic, S. Koch, T. Keller, T. Weber, S. Kranke, P. Anaesthesist Originalien BACKGROUND: Sympathomimetic drugs are a therapeutic cornerstone for the management of hypotensive states like intraoperative hypotension (IOH). While cafedrine/theodrenaline (C/T) is widely used in Germany to restore blood pressure in patients with IOH, more research is required to compare its effectiveness with alternatives such as ephedrine (E) that are more commonly available internationally. METHODS: HYPOTENS (NCT02893241, DRKS00010740) was a prospective, national, multicenter, open-label, two-armed, non-interventional study that compared C/T with E for treatment of IOH. We describe a prospectively defined cohort of patients ≥50 years old with comorbidities undergoing general anesthesia induced with propofol and fentanyl. Primary objectives were to examine treatment precision, rapidity of onset and the ability to restore blood pressure without relevant increases in heart rate. Secondary endpoints were treatment satisfaction and the number of required additional boluses or other accompanying measures. RESULTS: A total of 1496 patients were included in the per protocol analysis. Overall, effective stabilization of blood pressure was achieved with both C/T and E. Post-hoc analysis showed that blood pressure increase from baseline was more pronounced with C/T. Fewer additional boluses or other accompanying measures were required in the C/T arm. The incidence of tachycardia was comparable between groups. Post-hoc analysis showed that E produced dose-dependent elevated heart rate values. By contrast, heart rate remained stable in patients treated with C/T. Physicians reported a higher level of treatment satisfaction with C/T, with a higher proportion of anesthetists rating treatment precision and rapidity of onset as good or very good when compared with E. CONCLUSION: Neither drug was superior in restoring blood pressure levels; however, post-hoc analyses suggested that treatment is more goal-orientated and easier to control with C/T. Heart rate was shown to be more stable with C/T and fewer additional interventions were required to restore blood pressure, which could have contributed to the increased treatment satisfaction reported by anesthetists using C/T. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00101-020-00877-5) contains one further table and two figures. The article and additional material are available at www.springermedizin.de. Please enter the title of the article in the search field. You will find the additional material under “Ergänzende Inhalte” in the article. [Image: see text] Springer Medizin 2020-11-10 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8026467/ /pubmed/33170310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00101-020-00877-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020, korrigierte Publikation 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Originalien
Eberhart, L.
Geldner, G.
Kowark, A.
Zucker, T.-P.
Kreuer, S.
Przemeck, M.
Huljic, S.
Koch, T.
Keller, T.
Weber, S.
Kranke, P.
Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine: A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study—the HYPOTENS trial
title Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine: A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study—the HYPOTENS trial
title_full Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine: A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study—the HYPOTENS trial
title_fullStr Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine: A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study—the HYPOTENS trial
title_full_unstemmed Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine: A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study—the HYPOTENS trial
title_short Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine: A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study—the HYPOTENS trial
title_sort treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine: a prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study—the hypotens trial
topic Originalien
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8026467/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33170310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00101-020-00877-5
work_keys_str_mv AT eberhartl treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT geldnerg treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT kowarka treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT zuckertp treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT kreuers treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT przemeckm treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT huljics treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT kocht treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT kellert treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT webers treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT krankep treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial
AT treatmentofintraoperativehypotensionwithcafedrinetheodrenalineversusephedrineaprospectivenationalmulticenternoninterventionalstudythehypotenstrial