J.David Wallin

Intravenous labetalol in the treatment of severe hypertension and hypertensive emergencies

The antihypertensive effects of intravenous labetalol were evaluated in 59 patients with hypertensive crises or severe hypertension in need of rapid lowering of blood pressure in a multicenter study. Patients appearing with a supine diastolic blood pressure 125 mm Hg or greater, or a supine systolic blood pressure of more than 200 mm Hg received an initial mini-bolus injection (20 mg) of labetalol. This was followed by repeated incremental doses of 20 to 80 mg given at 10 minute intervals to achieve a supine diastolic blood pressure of less than 95 mm Hg or decrease 30 mm Hg or greater, or a satisfactory decrease in systolic blood pressure. Patients were stratified into those who had taken antihypertensive medication within 24 hours and those who had not. The initial mini-bolus injection caused rapid but not abrupt reduction in blood pressure; the baseline mean blood pressure decreased 23/14 mm Hg. Further injections were needed in the majority of patients (mean: 197 mg). The blood pressure reduction after the last dose of labetalol was 55/33 mm Hg. In pretreated patients and in those who had no medication for 24 hours prior to the intravenous labetalol, the response was similar. Heart rate decreased 10 beats per minute in the total population. In patients pretreated with beta-adrenergic blockers, blood pressure response was similar to that in the total group (59/35 versus 55/33 mm Hg), but heart rate remained essentially unchanged. The dose required to achieve the therapeutic effect was less in pretreated patients than in untreated patients, but the duration of action was shorter. No serious adverse effects were encountered even in patients with concomitant diagnoses of acute left ventricular failure, myocardial infarction, stable congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, angina pectoris, acute stroke, transient ischemic attack or encephalopathy. Labetalol is a safe and effective treatment for a rapid blood pressure reduction in hypertensive emergencies.

Intravenous nicardipine for the treatment of severe hypertension.

PURPOSEnSevere hypertension responds to treatment with nifedipine given orally or sublingually. Nicardipine hydrochloride, a water soluble dihydropyridine analogue similar to nifedipine, has less of a negative ionotropic effect and produces less reflex tachycardia than nifedipine. Our purpose was to assess the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of intravenous nicardipine in a group of patients with severe hypertension (defined as a supine diastolic blood pressure of more than 120 mm Hg).nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnEighteen patients with severe hypertension received treatment with intravenous nicardipine. Nicardipine titration was performed using doses of 4 to 15 mg/hour to achieve therapeutic goal (diastolic blood pressure 95 mm Hg or less or decrease in diastolic blood pressure of more than 25 mm Hg). After this therapeutic end-point was reached, patients received maintainance therapy with nicardipine for varying lengths of time: one hour (Group I), six hours (Group II), or 24 hours. When blood pressure control was lost, patients in Groups I and II entered a second maintenance period lasting a maximum of 24 hours. Onset and offset of action of nicardipine at various infusion rates and times of infusion were measured.nnnRESULTSnOnset time to achieve therapeutic response was rapid at 15 mg/hour (0.31 +/- 0.13 hours) when compared with lower doses (1.11 +/- 0.36 hours at 4 mg/hour; 0.54 +/- 0.09 hours at 5 mg/hour; 0.52 +/- 0.09 hours at 7 to 7.5 mg/hour). Those who showed a therapeutic response received maintenance infusions with nicardipine for one (n = 7), six (n = 6), or 24 (n = 5) hours. Sustained blood pressure control at a constant rate of nicardipine infusion was seen in all patients during the maintenance period. After discontinuation of nicardipine, the time for offset of action (increase in diastolic blood pressure of 10 mm Hg or more) was independent of duration of infusion. Decreases in both systolic and diastolic pressures correlated well with plasma nicardipine levels. Heart rate increased by about 10 beats/minute, but this increase did not correlate with plasma nicardipine levels. Side effects were minimal, consisting of headache and flushing. In seven patients, local phlebitis developed at the site of infusion. This occurred after at least 14 hours of infusion at a single site, and the incidence can probably be reduced by shortening the infusion time at a single site.nnnCONCLUSIONnNicardipine appears to be a safe and effective drug for intravenous use in the treatment of severe hypertension.

Therapeutic adherence in the elderly: Transdermal clonidine compared to oral verapamil for hypertension

This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial, conducted in elderly patients with mild hypertension, compared adherence to treatment, efficacy, side effects, and quality of life during treatment with transdermal clonidine versus oral sustained-release verapamil (verapamil-SR). Blood pressure declined significantly--from 148/95 mm Hg at baseline to 139/84 after titration and 135/86 after maintenance--with transdermal clonidine (n = 29), and from 156/96 to 144/85 and 148/88, respectively, with verapamil-SR (n = 29). Adverse event rates and quality-of-life questionnaire responses were similar in the two treatment groups. Transdermal clonidine was worn as directed during more than 96% of patient-weeks of treatment. Compliance with the oral verapamil regimen was less consistent: Verapamil-SR was taken as directed during approximately 50% of patient-weeks of therapy, and individual compliance, assessed by tablet counts, varied from 50-120%. In all, 86% of subjects were satisfied or highly satisfied with the convenience of transdermal therapy; 87% reported that side effects were slightly or not bothersome; 65% indicated that transdermal patches were more convenient than oral therapy; and almost 60% preferred transdermal to oral therapy. In this study transdermal clonidine and oral verapamil were equally safe and effective. A substantial majority of patients preferred transdermal to oral therapy, and adherence to treatment was greater with transdermal therapy.

Intravenous nicardipine in severe systemic hypertension

Sixty-six patients with severe hypertension were treated with intravenous nicardipine in 3 separate protocols. Each protocol had a common end point: Diastolic blood pressure would either reduce 25 mm Hg or measure below 95 mm Hg. Each of the 66 patients studied attained the desired clinical response end point. Intravenous nicardipine produced a gradual reduction in blood pressure, was effective in maintaining blood pressure control during constant infusion and had few undesirable effects. These observations suggest that intravenous nicardipine maybe a useful addition to a limited number of therapeutic agents currently available to the physician for treatment of hypertensive urgencies.

Antihypertensives and their impact on renal function.

Antihypertensive agents possess many properties that could cause alterations in renal function. These are: alterations in systemic hemodynamics, changes in the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system, direct intrarenal effects, and alterations in salt and water metabolism. This article reviews the antihypertensive agents in general usage and major points are made concerning potential deleterious effects of methyldopa and nonselective beta-adrenergic blocking drugs on renal function. In particular, recent data are shown concerning the effects of labetalol on renal function indicating the absence of decrements in glomerular filtration rate and renal plasma flow in patients with normal renal function and in patients with mild to moderate renal insufficiency. A possible decrease in these parameters in patients with severe renal insufficiency is presented and discussed.

Renal function effects of dilevalol, a nonselective beta-adrenergic blocking drug with beta-2 agonist activity

The effects of dilevalol, a new β‐adrenergic blocking agent with β‐agonism, on renal function were determined in two groups of patients. Patients in group 1, all with normal renal function, received either dilevalol or atenolol. Patients in group II, all with impaired renal function, received either dilevalol or metoprolol. Parameters of renal function determined before and after chronic oral treatment included glomerular filtration rate (GFR), effective renal plasma flow, filtration fraction, mean arterial pressure (MAP), renal blood flow, and renal vascular resistance. Dilevalol lowered MAP by 14 mm Hg (P < 0.005) in group I and 25 mm Hg (P < 0.01) in group II but had no effect on other parameters of renal function, at either peak or trough drug levels. Atenolol and metoprolol also lowered MAP by 11 mm Hg (P < 0.01) and 15 mm Hg (P < 0.05), respectively. Atenolol reduced GFR by 23% at peak drug level, an effect that was partially ameliorated at trough drug level. The effect of atenolol on GFR appeared to vary as a function of baseline renal function in that greater reductions were seen in groups of patients with increasing baseline GFR. Metoprolol significantly decreased renal vascular resistance by 17% (P < 0.05). These data suggest that dilevalol effectively lowers blood pressure in hypertensive patients with normal or compromised renal function with no negative impact on parameters of renal function.

Azathioprine and Hypersensitivity Vasculitis

Excerpt To the Editor:We report hypersensitivity vasculitis in two patients with end-stage renal disease receiving azathioprine as part of a pretransplant transfusion protocol. The relationship of ...

Ureteral obstruction due to blood clot following percutaneous renal biopsy: resolution with intraureteral streptokinase.

The nonsurgical approach to unilateral ureteral obstruction due to impaction of a blood clot is described. A patient with the nephrotic syndrome secondary to minimal change disease had gross hematuria and acute renal failure following percutaneous renal biopsy. After he responded to prednisone therapy, clot obstruction developed at the site of the percutaneous biopsied kidney, which was treated with intracaliceal infusion of streptokinase via a ureteral catheter. Complete resolution of the clot and the urinary tract obstruction was accomplished within 3 days. This approach appears to be the treatment of choice in upper urinary tract obstruction secondary to blood clots when simple ureteral catheter drainage is ineffective.

Dilevalol compared with propranolol and placebo for systemic hypertension.

Dilevalol is a new antihypertensive agent that is both a vasodilator, through its beta 2-agonist action, and a nonselective beta antagonist. Two multicenter, double-blind studies were performed: study 1 compared dilevalol administered once-daily with either dilevalol or propranolol every 12 hours; study 2 compared dilevalol administered once daily with placebo. Both studies had a placebo run-in period to establish that the baseline supine diastolic blood pressures were consistent in the mild to moderate severity range (95 to 115 mm Hg) at 2 consecutive visits for study 1 and in the mild severity range (95 to 105 mm Hg) in study 2. Patients then were randomized to the double-blind titration phase, during which doses were titrated over a 9-week period to achieve a supine diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg and a decrease from baseline of greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg. Patients were then maintained on a fixed dose for 2 months (study 1) or for 1 month (study 2). Dilevalol given once daily was as effective in reducing supine diastolic blood pressure as dilevalol every 12 hours and propranolol every 12 hours (study 1) and was superior to placebo (p less than 0.001) (study 2). In both studies, dilevalol given once daily was effective and well tolerated. The side-effect profile of dilevalol was similar to that of placebo and different from that of propranolol. Treatment with dilevalol resulted in significantly less fatigue (p less than 0.05), bradycardia (less than 50 beats/minute) and mental depression than with propranolol, but significantly (p less than 0.05) more diarrhea/loose stools.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Treatment of severe hypertension with labetalol compared with methyldopa and furosemide: Results of a long-term, double-blind, multicenter trial☆

Eighty-one severely hypertensive patients were enrolled in a multicenter, double-blind, parallel group study evaluating the efficacy and safety of labetalol alone or in combination with furosemide versus methyldopa in combination with furosemide. A one day to four week placebo lead-in phase was followed by a one- to six-week titration period and a one-year maintenance period. Treatment with labetalol alone or in combination with furosemide, as well as methyldopa plus furosemide, was associated with significant reductions in supine and standing blood pressure levels. Moreover, after six months and one year of treatment, respectively, labetalol caused a significantly (p less than 0.05) greater reduction in the systolic blood pressure than the methyldopa regimen. The antihypertensive effect of labetalol was associated with small, yet significant reductions in heart rate; in contrast, resting tachycardia was observed in methyldopa-treated patients. Side effect profiles of the two treatments were different, with nausea being the most commonly reported side effect during labetalol therapy, and asthenia, somnolence, and dry mouth during methyldopa therapy. Overall, 33 of 65 (53 percent) labetalol-treated and 28 of 60 (47 percent) methyldopa-treated patients had at least a good response (that is, standing diastolic blood pressure 90 to 94 mm Hg) to therapy, including 26 (40 percent) and 22 (37 percent) patients, respectively, who had standing diastolic blood pressure levels of less than 90 mm Hg. Thus, labetalol is a potentially safe and effective agent in the long-term management of the patient with severe hypertension.