ABSTRACT
Background: Benzodiazepines are considered the gold standard for treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), a group of symptoms that occur after abrupt cessation of alcohol use, but may be associated with serious adverse effects. Given the safety concerns, alternative treatment options for AWS management have been investigated, including gabapentin and baclofen. Because no available studies have investigated the inpatient use of the gabapentin and baclofen combination for alcohol detoxification, this study aims to evaluate their efficacy and safety in the inpatient hospital setting. Methods: This retrospective cohort study at the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center in North Chicago, Illinois, included patients who were aged ≥ 18 years and who were admitted to the general acute medicine floor for the primary indication of AWS from January 1, 2014, to July 31, 2021. The primary outcome was the length of stay, defined as hours from admission to either discharge or 36 hours with a Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol (CIWA) score ≤ 8. Electronic health records were reviewed to collect CIWA scores, alcohol withdrawal seizure and delirium tremens incidence, rates of conversions from gabapentin/baclofen to lorazepam, rates of transitions to a higher level of care, and readmission for AWS within 30 days. Results: Mean length of stay in the gabapentin/baclofen group was statistically significantly shorter compared with the benzodiazepine group (42.6 vs 82.5 hours, P < .001). The study found no significant difference between the gabapentin/baclofen and benzodiazepine groups in AWS readmission, adjuvant medications for AWS management, and number of patients who transitioned to a higher level of care. Overall, the safety of gabapentin/baclofen vs benzodiazepine were comparable; however, 1 patient experienced a seizure, and 1 patient experienced delirium tremens during admission in the benzodiazepine group. Conclusions: Gabapentin/baclofen combination seems to be an effective and safe alternative to benzodiazepines and may be considered for managing mild AWS in hospitalized patients, but additional research is needed to examine this regimen.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In acute stroke, hypertension worsens outcomes. Guidelines do not mention a preferred antihypertensive agent. This present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nicardipine and clevidipine in acute stroke. METHODS: This retrospective review compared nicardipine with clevidipine for hypertension in acute stroke patients from March 17, 2015 to December 23, 2016. Ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke types were evaluated. Patients were excluded if under 18 years, had traumatic brain injury, had intracranial neoplasm, were on dialysis, had both study drugs during the stroke admission, or the study drug was infused for less than 1 hour. Efficacy outcomes were: time to goal blood pressure, percent time in goal, blood pressure range, and need for additional antihypertensive agents during the infusion. A composite of in-hospital death, 30-day readmission, rebleeding, ischemic to hemorrhagic conversion, and hematoma expansion were compared. Other clinical outcomes included length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, hypotension, bradycardia, tachycardia, onset of atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury. RESULTS: Mean time to goal blood pressure was 65.5 minutes and 65.8 minutes in the nicardipine and clevidipine group, respectively (P = .83). No efficacy outcome was significantly different between 2 groups after multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Both nicardipine and clevidipine are reasonable antihypertensive agents in stroke, although cost and volume restriction could differentiate preference.
