Key result
Clevidipine was associated with a higher median percent of time spent within goal blood pressure range compared to nicardipine (55.2% vs 36.4%, P=0.036) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Why the study?
The study sought to compare the efficacy of clevidipine versus nicardipine for treating perioperative acute hypertension in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Does clevidipine improve blood pressure control compared to nicardipine in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with perioperative acute hypertension?
Cohort (n=67)
No
Does clevidipine improve blood pressure control compared to nicardipine in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with perioperative acute hypertension?
Clevidipine provides better perioperative blood pressure control than nicardipine in cardiac surgery patients, with similar safety and a negligible increase in cost.
Clevidipine was associated with better perioperative BP control than nicardipine; leaves open whether it should replace nicardipine pending randomized trials.
Objective: The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of clevidipine to nicardipine in the treatment of perioperative acute hypertension in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study which included patients who received either clevidipine or nicardipine. Patients were followed for the duration of study drug infusion or for a maximum of 48 hours. Outcomes assessed included the percent of time spent within patient specific goal blood pressure, incidence of hypertensive events per patient, safety outcomes, and cost of medication treatment. Results: There were 201 cardiac surgeries performed between August 2018–January 2019 and July 2019–February 2020. Sixty-seven patients met our inclusion criteria of receiving either clevidipine (n = 29) or nicardipine (n = 38). The median percent of time spent within goal blood pressure range for clevidipine was 55.2% compared to 36.4% for nicardipine treatment ( P = .036). The median number of hypertensive episodes per patient was 3 for clevidipine and 2 for nicardipine ( P = .211). There were no identified differences in safety outcomes such as hypotension, vasopressor use, serum creatinine elevation, tachycardia, and atrial fibrillation. The median cost of treatment required for the observed 48-hour period with clevidipine was $128.58 compared to $55.74 for nicardipine ( P < .001). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that patients undergoing cardiac surgery on clevidipine had better perioperative blood pressure control compared to nicardipine, with a negligible increase in cost, and no observed difference in safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Colomy et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Perioperative acute hypertension in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (n=67). Clevidipine vs. Nicardipine was evaluated on percent of time spent within patient specific goal blood pressure (p=.036). Clevidipine was associated with a higher median percent of time spent within goal blood pressure range compared to nicardipine (55.2% vs 36.4%, P=0.036) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: