INTRAVENOUS URAPIDIL VERSUS SUBLINGUAL NIFEDIPINE IN THE TREATMENT OF HYPERTENSIVE URGENCIES

被引:30
作者
HIRSCHL, MM
SEIDLER, D
ZEINER, A
WAGNER, A
HEINZ, G
STERZ, F
LAGGNER, AN
机构
[1] Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Vienna
[2] Clinic of Internal Medicine, Department of Cardiology, University of Vienna
关键词
HYPERTENSIVE URGENCIES; URAPIDIL; NIFEDIPINE;
D O I
10.1016/0735-6757(93)90026-8
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
In a 6-month prospective study, the efficacy and safety of urapidil and nifedipine in an outpatient population with hypertensive urgencies (systolic blood pressure >200 mm Hg; diastolic blood pressure >110 mm Hg) was investigated. Response to treatment was defined as a stable reduction of systolic blood pressure below 180 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg 15 minutes after application of a single dose of either 25 mg urapidil intravenously (N = 26) or 10 mg nifedipine sublingually (N = 27). If the blood pressure was still elevated, a second dose of 10 mg nifedipine or 12.5 mg urapidil was given, and blood pressure response was evaluated 15 minutes after application of the second dose according to the aforementioned criterias. After the first application of nifedipine, 19 (70%) responders have been observed. Eight patients needed an additional 10 mg of nifedipine. In four of these patients, no reduction of blood pressure was observed after a second dose of nifedipine. In contrast, 24 (92%) patients responded well to the first application of 25 mg of urapidil. Two patients required a second dose of 12.5 mg of urapidil, but no nonresponder to urapidil was observed. No severe side-effects were noted in both groups. Intravenous urapidil is a highly effective drug in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies and is more effective than sublingual nifedipine, because the number of patients treated successfully was significantly higher. © 1993.
引用
收藏
页码:653 / 656
页数:4
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
Ferguson, Vlasses, Hypertension emergencies and urgencies, JAMA, 255, pp. 1607-1613, (1986)
[2]  
Just, Schrader, Paloucek, Et al., Evaluation of drug therapy for treatment of hypertensive urgencies in the emergency department, Am J Emerg Med, 9, pp. 107-111, (1991)
[3]  
Houston, The comparative effects of clonidine hydrochloride and nifedipine in the treatment of hypertensive crisis, Am Heart J, 115, pp. 152-159, (1988)
[4]  
Zell-Kanter, Leikin, Oral labetalol in hypertensive urgencies, Am J Emerg Med, 9, pp. 136-138, (1991)
[5]  
Houston, Treatment of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies with oral clonidine loading and titration, Arch Intern Med, 146, pp. 586-589, (1986)
[6]  
Angeli, Chieza, Caregaro, Et al., Comparison of sublingual captopril and nifedipine in immediate treatment of hypertensive emergencies, Ann Intern Med, 151, pp. 678-682, (1991)
[7]  
Beer, Gallegos, Cohen, Et al., Efficiency of sublingual nifedipine in the acute treatment of hypertensive emergencies, Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology, 3, pp. 1287-1295, (1981)
[8]  
Huey, Thomas, Hendricks, Et al., Clinical evaluation of intravenous labetalol for the treatment of hypertensive urgency, American Journal of Hypertension, 1, pp. 284S-289S, (1988)
[9]  
Ferguson, Vlasses, Koplin, Et al., Captopril in severe treatment resistant hypertension, Am Heart J, 99, pp. 579-583, (1980)
[10]  
Case, Atlas, Sullivan, Et al., Acute and chronic treatment of severe hypertension and malignant hypertension with oral angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor captopril, Chest, 79, pp. 571-574, (1981)