A randomized multicenter double-blind comparison of urapidil and ketanserin in hypertensive patients after coronary artery surgery

Perioperative Use of Clevidipine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Clevidipine is an ultrashort-acting drug for rapid reduction of blood pressure by selectively acting on the L-type Ca2+ channels on arteriolar smooth muscle. The drug’s ultrashort action in reducing the blood pressure is due to its rapid hydrolysis by blood and extravascular tissue esterases, which does not depend on hepato-renal metabolism and excretion. An analysis of the perioperative management of blood pressure should be considered to compare with other intravenous antihypertensive agents.

Methods

Analyses of the available evidence in randomized clinical trials following the PRISMA methodology as well as clinical significance according to the GRADE system were conducted. Placebo versus other antihypertensive drugs studies were included. Statistical assessments were done using the X2 and I2 tests.

Results

Clevidipine was more effective in maintaining the blood pressure within pre-specified ranges compared with other antihypertensive drugs (MD, -17.87 CI 95%: -29.02 to -6.72; p = 0.02). The use of Clevidipine versus placebo and rescue antihypertensive intravenous drug showed a clear reduction in rates of treatment failure (RR 0.10; IC 95%; 0.05–0.18; p <0.0001). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.43, p = 0.14) and with other antihypertensive drugs (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.35; p = 0.37). In addition, there was no difference in the incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) between clevidipine and control groups (RR 1.09, IC del 95%: 0.65 a 1.83; p = 0.73).

Conclusions

Clevidipine is an ultrafast-acting drug that is highly effective for management of perioperative arterial hypertension. It is devoid of adverse effects associated with the use of other IV antihypertensives. Its favorable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties make clevidipine the drug of choice for the management of acute perioperative hypertension. It is important to emphasize the need for further studies with a larger number of patients to confirm these findings and increase the degree of evidence.

Optimal perioperative management of arterial blood pressure

Perioperative blood pressure management is a key factor of patient care for anesthetists, as perioperative hemodynamic instability is associated with cardiovascular complications. Hypertension is an independent predictive factor of cardiac adverse events in noncardiac surgery. Intraoperative hypotension is one of the most encountered factors associated with death related to anesthesia. In the preoperative setting, the majority of antihypertensive medications should be continued until surgery. Only renin-angiotensin system antagonists may be stopped. Hypertension, especially in the case of mild to moderate hypertension, is not a cause for delaying surgery. During the intraoperative period, anesthesia leads to hypotension. Hypotension episodes should be promptly treated by intravenous vasopressors, and according to their etiology. In the postoperative setting, hypertension predominates. Continuation of antihypertensive medications and postoperative care may be insufficient. In these cases, intravenous antihypertensive treatments are used to control blood pressure elevation.

Comparative effectiveness of hypertensive crise management in the post-surgery period after carotid endarterectomy: first results

Aim. To compare the effectiveness of different antihypertensive medications in the management of hypertensive crise (HC) in the early post-surgery period after carotid endarterectomy (CEE). Material and methods. The study included 39 patients (14 women, 25 men; mean age 65,6±6,6 years) hospitalised to the Cardiovascular Surgery Department of a major Moscow City hospital. All patients underwent CEE, with a HC developed in the early post-surgery period. All participants were divided into three groups: in Group I, HC was treated with nimodipine, while Groups II and III received enalaprilat and uradipil, respectively. Results. Intravenous administration of all three medications resulted in an antihypertensive effect. A significant reduction in blood pressure (BP) levels was observed after the administration of nimodipine and uradipil. However, nimodipine caused reflectory tachycardia, which was not observed in patients treated with uradipil. Conclusion. The results obtained are consistent that out of the three studied medications, uradipil appeared the most appropriate for the HC management in the early post-CEE period. It reduced BP levels without causing reflectory tachycardia or clinical hypotension, which confirms clinical effectiveness and safety of uradipil as a medication of choice for the urgent HC management.

Urapidil, a dual-acting antihypertensive agent: Current usage considerations

Despite the availability of a wide range of effective blood pressure (BP)-lowering agents, a substantial proportion of patients with hypertension fail to achieve target BP levels. The majority of patients with hypertension need a combination of two or more drugs to achieve BP targets and choice of second-line or subsequent-line therapy is an important consideration in hypertension management. Alpha-1-adrenoreceptor antagonists (alpha-blockers) have a BP-lowering effect broadly similar to the other antihypertensive drug classes and are effective as add-on therapy in patients with inadequately controlled hypertension. Alpha-blockers may also have therapeutic benefits that go beyond BP control, including improvements in lipid profile and glucose metabolism, as well as reducing the symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urapidil has an alpha-blocking effect but, unlike other alpha-blockers, also has a central sympatholytic effect mediated via stimulation of serotonin 5HT(1A) receptors in the central nervous system. Several studies have suggested that oral urapidil is effective and well tolerated when used as second-line therapy in patients with BP inadequately controlled with other agents. Urapidil has also been shown to improve glucose and lipid metabolism in hypertensive patients with concomitant diabetes and/or hyperlipidemia. Intravenous urapidil is effective in the treatment of hypertensive crises, perioperative hypertension, and pre-eclampsia and may have a potential role in the management of acute stroke. In this review, the use of alpha-blockers in hypertension is discussed, with particular focus on urapidil for the lowering of BP in a variety of clinical settings.

Urapidil reduces elevated pulmonary vascular resistance in patients before heart transplantation

BACKGROUND

Elevated pulmonary vascular resistance is a major limitation for heart transplantation. Urapidil is a centrally and peripherally acting anti-hypertensive drug, able to decrease elevated pulmonary vascular resistance in patients with either chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or heart failure. Urapidil is available as an oral or intravenous drug. In this study, we evaluated the possible beneficial effects of intravenous urapidil in patients with reversible, elevated pulmonary vascular resistance who were scheduled for heart transplantation.

METHODS

After approval by the Ethics Committee and written consent, 22 consecutive patients with end-stage heart failure and history of pulmonary vascular resistance >3 Wood units were enrolled into an open, prospective study. Using a (right ventricular ejection fraction) REF-Swan-Ganz catheter, hemodynamics were determined during administration of nitric oxide, and before and after 3 repeated intravenous applications of 10 mg urapidil. The treatment goal was reduction of pulmonary vascular resistance by at least 30%.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were included to obtain complete data for 14 patients. Eight patients were not treated with urapidil: 7 patients had normal pulmonary vascular resistance at baseline, and 1 patient experienced moderate pulmonary edema before the study began. Two patients did not reach the treatment goal. In patients who responded to urapidil, the following hemodynamic changes were observed: decreased pulmonary vascular resistance (-48%), decreased transpulmonary gradient (20.0 to 13.7 mm Hg), decreased mean pulmonary arterial pressure (40 to 31 mm Hg), decreased systemic vascular resistance (-27%), mean arterial pressure (80 to 72 mm Hg), and increased right heart ejection fraction (21% to 27%). Heart rate remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous urapidil lowered elevated pulmonary vascular resistance in patients before heart transplantation. In comparison with other vasodilative drugs, the major benefit of urapidil is its oral formulation.

Intracoronary-administered urapidil does not influence myocardial contractility, metabolic activity, or coronary sinus blood flow in humans

OBJECTIVE

To compare the acute effect of intracoronary administration of urapidil and saline on myocardial contractility and metabolic activity.

DESIGN

Prospective, controlled, open-label study.

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Eight patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing elective percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) received normal saline followed by urapidil, 4 mg, injected directly into the left main coronary artery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Because local intracoronary administration is a non-steady-state condition, an in vitro model was used before the clinical experiments to establish the kinetic effects of acute administration of urapidil. The clinical experiments were performed in eight patients with CAD after PTCA. Measurements included a complete hemodynamic profile, coronary sinus blood flow (continuous thermodilution), left ventricular (LV) peak (+) dP/dt, LV peak (-) dP/dt, LV dP/dt/P(D)40, and LV end-diastolic pressures. Arterial and coronary venous blood samples were also obtained for the calculation of myocardial oxygen consumption. Baseline measurements I were first obtained, followed by intracoronary injection of 2 mL of saline. Additional measurements were obtained 1, 5, and 10 minutes after administration of saline. After a resting period (15 minutes), baseline measurements II, and intracoronary injection of urapidil, 4 mg (dissolved in 2 mL saline), additional measurements were obtained 1, 5, and 10 minutes later. Heart rate decreased 2.7+/-3.5 beats/min after injection of saline, whereas heart rate increased 2.0+/-1.8 beats/min after intracoronary urapidil, resulting in a significant difference in treatment effect (p = 0.003). There were no additional differences in treatment effect for any of the other measured or calculated parameters reflecting systemic hemodynamics, LV contractility, coronary dynamics, and myocardial metabolic activity.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that intracoronary bolus administration of preservative-free urapidil, 4 mg, is not associated with any detectable effect on myocardial contractility or coronary smooth muscle in awake nonsurgical patients with CAD, after PTCA.

Urapidil. A reappraisal of its use in the management of hypertension

Urapidil is a peripheral postsynaptic alpha 1-adrenoceptor antagonist with central agonistic action at serotonin 5-HT1A receptors. It reduces blood pressure by decreasing peripheral vascular resistance. Oral urapidil decreases blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and associated risk factors such as hyperlipidaemia or type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus with no effect on heart rate. The antihypertensive efficacy of urapidil is similar to that of most comparators in patients with mild to moderate essential or secondary hypertension and no concomitant risk factors. However, the antihypertensive efficacy of urapidil was lower than that of hydrochlorothiazide in a well designed trial. Lipid levels and glucose metabolism are not adversely affected and may improve with urapidil in patients with lipid or glucose abnormalities. Urapidil can be safely combined with other antihypertensive agents such as hydrochlorothiazide and nifedipine and improves blood pressure control in previous nonresponders to monotherapy. Intravenous urapidil reduces blood pressure in patients with pre-eclampsia or hypertension in pregnancy and in patients with hypertensive crises or peri- or postoperative hypertension. The decrease in blood pressure is similar to that observed after nifedipine, enalaprilat, sodium nitroprusside and dihydralazine, greater than that of ketanserin according to 1 larger study, and greater than that of sublingual nitroglycerin in 1 trial in patients with nonsurgical hypertensive crises and pulmonary oedema. However, more patients responded to treatment with urapidil than with enalaprilat or nifedipine. Heart rate is less likely to be altered by urapidil than with some comparator drugs. Urapidil appears to be well tolerated, with most adverse events being mild and transient. The incidence of adverse events with urapidil is similar to that with prazosin, metoprolol, atenolol, sodium nitroprusside and hydrochlorothiazide and less than that with nifedipine and clonidine. Urapidil may not be as well tolerated as captopril and, in 1 study, more urapidil than nitrendipine recipients discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

urapidil reduces blood pressure without altering heart rate. The oral formulation is an effective choice in patients with hypertension and concomitant dyslipidaemia or type 2 diabetes mellitus, in whom the drug does not adversely affect and may improve lipid profiles and glucose metabolism. The intravenous formulation is effective in controlling various hypertensive crises and hypertension associated with pregnancy or surgery and is similar to or better than other first-line agents used in these conditions. Thus, urapidil may be a useful alternative to currently available antihypertensive agents.

Influence of Vasodilator Drugs on Perioperative Blood Pressure

Survey results are given of the incidence and the etiology of perioperative hypertension in patients sub jected to coronary artery surgery. Over the years, numer ous types of antihypertensives have been used for intravenous administration with the aim of preventing or treating perioperative hypertension. Nitrovasodilator compounds such as sodium nitroprusside and nitroglyc erin (NTG), a few calcium antagonists (nifedipine, nicar dipine and isradipine), the short-acting β-blocker esmo lol, clonidine, and the multifactorial compounds labetalol and ketanserin are discussed in detail. Perioperatively, there is an increasing level of plasma catecholamines, causing α-adrenoceptor stimulation. This indicates that α-adrenoceptor blockade with appropriate antagonists is a logical approach for the treatment of perioperative hypertension. For this reason, the multifactorial agent urapidil, which is an α-adrenoceptor blocker and a 5-HT1A agonist, is discussed extensively.

DA1-receptor stimulation by fenoldopam in the treatment of postcardiac surgical hypertension

BACKGROUND

Besides adequate analgesia, sedation and ventilation, postcardiac surgical hypertension has to be treated frequently with vasoactive drugs to avoid possible complications. In this study the hemodynamic effects of the DA1-receptor agonist fenoldopam (F) are compared to those of the Ca-channel antagonist nifedipine (N).

METHODS

Postoperatively, 64 CABG-patients with a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of more than 105 mmHg over 10 min were investigated. Patients with compromised ventricular function, insufficient surgical repair, arrhythmia or an ECG unable to detect myocardial ischemia were excluded. The study drugs (initial dosage: F: 0.8; N: 0.3 micrograms.kg-1.min-1) were given continuously via a central venous catheter to reduce and to maintain the MAP between 80 and 95 mmHg. Hemodynamic parameters were determined using thermodilution technique.

RESULTS

A significant reduction of the MAP (F: from 121 +/- 11 to 83 +/- 4, N: from 119 +/- 8 to 82 +/- 9 mmHg) and of the calculated systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (F: 2110 +/- 500 to 970 +/- 200, N:1980 +/- 660 to 1020 +/- 300 dyn.s.cm-5) were noted in both groups, whereby in the F group the therapeutic goal could be achieved more quickly with the dosage regimen chosen. As a result, a marked increase of heart rate, cardiac index and stroke volume index could be observed, which was more pronounced due to the initially stronger decrease of SVR with F. There was also a stronger decrease of pulmonary vascular resistance in the F group, but the indices of right ventricular function did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Fenoldopam seems to be an efficient alternative to nifedipine, especially because of its more rapid onset of action.