RESUMEN
DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: Evidence has suggested that clevidipine may provide faster blood pressure (BP) reduction with less volume than nicardipine in stroke and cardiothoracic surgery patients, but its use in hypertensive crises has not been well established. The primary objective of this study was to compare the treatment success of clevidipine and nicardipine in hypertensive crisis. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study including patients who received either clevidipine or nicardipine for treatment of hypertensive crisis. The primary outcome was the time from infusion start to attainment of goal BP, defined as the higher value of the guideline-directed 25% reduction in BP or the physician-ordered goal. Secondary outcomes were the time from infusion start to guideline-directed 25% reduction in BP, drug and total volume intake, the time from order entry to BP goal attainment, the number of BP and heart rate excursions, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and study medication cost. RESULTS: In total, 182 patients were included in the study (103 receiving nicardipine and 79 receiving clevidipine). Time to goal BP was similar between the groups (35 vs 33 minutes for clevidipine vs nicardipine, respectively; P = 0.37). Time to guideline-directed 25% reduction was also similar (P = 0.42). Volume from study drug was significantly less with clevidipine (222 vs 518 mL; P = 0.01); however, the total volume received in the ICU was similar (3,370 vs 3,383 mL; P = 0.43). Percent time in the goal BP range was similar (43.1% vs 42.3%). The cost of clevidipine was $199.37 per vial (based on the average wholesale price as of June 2023). This cost was 682% higher than that for a bag of nicardipine. CONCLUSION: Time to goal BP was similar for clevidipine and nicardipine in this population. Any decreases in medication-associated volume with clevidipine were no longer evident when all volume sources were considered. These results show that clevidipine may not provide meaningful benefit in this heterogenous population. The difference in cost does not seem justified given the lack of improvement in clinically relevant outcomes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Low cholesterol levels in early sepsis patients are associated with mortality. We sought to test if IV lipid emulsion administration to sepsis patients with low cholesterol levels would prevent a decline or increase total cholesterol levels at 48 hours. DESIGN: Phase II, adaptive, randomized pilot clinical trial powered for 48 patients. SETTING: Emergency department or ICU of an academic medical center. PATIENTS: Sepsis patients (first 24 hr) with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment greater than or equal to 4 or shock. INTERVENTIONS: Patients meeting study criteria, including screening total cholesterol levels less than or equal to 100 mg/dL or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) + low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) less than or equal to 70 mg/dL, were randomized to receive one of three doses of lipid emulsion administered twice in 48 hours or no drug (controls). The primary endpoint was a change in serum total cholesterol (48 hr - enrollment) between groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were enrolled and randomized. Two patients randomized to lipid emulsion were withdrawn before drug administration. Data for 24 control patients and 23 lipid emulsion patients were analyzed. The mean change in total cholesterol from enrollment to 48 hours was not different between groups and was 5 mg/dL ( sd 20) for lipid emulsion patients, and 2 mg/dL ( sd 18) for control patients ( p = 0.62). The mean changes in HDL-C and LDL-C were similar between groups. Mean change in triglycerides was elevated in lipid emulsion patients (61 mg/dL, sd 87) compared with controls (20 mg/dL, sd 70, p = 0.086). The 48-hour change in SOFA score was -2 (interquartile range [IQR] -4, -1) for control patients and -2 (IQR -3, 0) for lipid emulsion patients ( p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of IV lipid emulsion to early sepsis patients with low cholesterol levels did not influence change in cholesterol levels from enrollment to 48 hours.