• Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez, Jiz Thomas, Andres Reccius, Sachin Agarwal, Hector Lantigua, Min Li, Amanda M Carpenter, Stephan A Mayer, J Michael Schmidt, Kiwon Lee, Jan Claassen, Neeraj Badjatia, and Christine Lesch.
• Division of Neurocritical Care, The Neurologic Institute of New York, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
• Neurocrit Care. 2013 Feb 1;18(1):13-9.

BackgroundNicardipine and labetalol are two commonly used antihypertensives for treating elevated blood pressures in the setting of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). There are no studies comparing these two agents as continuous infusions.MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted of patients admitted between November 2009 and January 2011 with ICH and SAH to compare effectiveness and safety between both agents. Percent time spent at goal was set as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included blood pressure variability, time to goal, incidence of bradycardia, tachycardia, and hypotension.ResultsA total of 81 patients were available for analysis, 10 initiated on labetalol (LAB), 57 on nicardipine (NIC), and 14 required the combination of these agents (COMB) to reach goal. We found no difference between NIC, LAB, and the COMB groups in the median percent time at goal [88 % (61-98); 93 % (51-99); 66 % (25-95), (p = NS)]. Median percentage of blood pressure variability, hypotension, and bradycardia were also comparable between groups, however, more tachycardia was observed in the COMB group versus both LAB and NIC groups (45 vs. 0 vs. 3 %; p < 0.001). Mean time to goal SBP in 24 patients who had BP readings available at 1st h of initiation was 32 ± 34 min in the NIC group and 53 ± 42 min in the LAB group (p = 0.03).ConclusionsBoth agents appear equally effective and safe for blood pressure control in SAH and ICH during the initial admission hours. A prospective study is needed to validate these findings.

27 keywords...

hide…