• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Evaluation of drug therapy for treatment of hypertensive urgencies in the emergency department.

作者信息

Just V L, Schrader B J, Paloucek F P, Hoon T J, Leikin J B, Bauman J L

机构信息

Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois, Chicago 60612.

出版信息

Am J Emerg Med. 1991 Mar;9(2):107-11. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(91)90168-j.

DOI:10.1016/0735-6757(91)90168-j
PMID:1994934
Abstract

Oral nifedipine (N) and clonidine (C) are often used in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies; however, until recently, there were no comparative studies using the same patient population. The authors reviewed the records of hypertensive patients treated in the emergency department between October 1, 1987 and September 30, 1988. Selected patients had a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of greater than 115 mm Hg without evidence of acute end organ damage. Patients were stratified into three treatment groups: N, C, and group 3 (G3). G3 received a variety of drug therapies but not exclusively N or C. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), DBP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), percent decrease in MAP (%MAP), time to lower blood pressure, admissions, and discharges were evaluated. Efficacy and safety were defined as reaching a DBP less than 110 mm Hg but %MAP of no greater than either 25% or 40%, respectively. Thirty-five N, 32 C, and 27 G3 patients were identified with no statistical difference between groups in race, gender, pretreatment SBP, DBP, or MAP. N, C, and G3 significantly reduced SBP, DBP, and MAP (P less than .01). Comparing N, C, and G3, no differences were observed in %MAP, admissions, discharges, efficacy, or safety. Time required to decrease blood pressure differed between all three groups (44 +/- 32 N v 77 +/- 57 C v 152 +/- 94 min G3) (p less than .05). These results indicate that N, C, and a variety of drug therapies are equally effective and safe in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies.

摘要

相似文献

1
Evaluation of drug therapy for treatment of hypertensive urgencies in the emergency department.
Am J Emerg Med. 1991 Mar;9(2):107-11. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(91)90168-j.
2
Oral labetalol versus oral nifedipine in hypertensive urgencies in the ED.急诊科高血压急症中口服拉贝洛尔与口服硝苯地平的比较
Am J Emerg Med. 1993 Sep;11(5):460-3. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(93)90083-n.
3
Clinical presentation and management of patients with uncontrolled, severe hypertension: results from a public teaching hospital.血压控制不佳的重度高血压患者的临床表现与管理:一家公立教学医院的研究结果
J Hum Hypertens. 1999 Apr;13(4):249-55. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1000796.
4
Treatment of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies with nitrendipine, nifedipine, and clonidine: effect on blood pressure and heart rate.使用尼群地平、硝苯地平和可乐定治疗高血压急症和亚急症:对血压和心率的影响。
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1988;12 Suppl 4:S154-6. doi: 10.1097/00005344-198806124-00035.
5
Efficacy and safety of sublingual nifedipine in hypertensive emergencies.舌下含服硝苯地平治疗高血压急症的疗效与安全性。
Am J Med. 1985 Oct 11;79(4A):19-25. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(85)90496-6.
6
A new preparation of nifedipine for sublingual application in hypertensive urgencies.一种用于高血压急症舌下含服的硝苯地平新制剂。
Angiology. 1994 Jul;45(7):629-35. doi: 10.1177/000331979404500706.
7
[Acute reduction of blood pressure: comparative study of nifedipine and clonidine].[急性血压降低:硝苯地平和可乐定的比较研究]
Arq Bras Cardiol. 1991 Feb;56(2):127-30.
8
Efficacy of different antihypertensive drugs in the emergency department.不同降压药物在急诊科的疗效
J Hum Hypertens. 1996 Sep;10 Suppl 3:S143-6.
9
Long-acting lacidipine versus short-acting nifedipine in the treatment of asymptomatic acute blood pressure increase.长效拉西地平与短效硝苯地平治疗无症状性急性血压升高的比较
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1999 Mar;33(3):479-84. doi: 10.1097/00005344-199903000-00019.
10
Intravenous urapidil versus sublingual nifedipine in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies.静脉注射乌拉地尔与舌下含服硝苯地平治疗高血压急症的比较。
Am J Emerg Med. 1993 Nov;11(6):653-6. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(93)90026-8.

引用本文的文献

1
Pharmacologic Treatment of Hypertensive Urgency in the Outpatient Setting: A Systematic Review.高血压急症门诊患者的药物治疗:系统评价。
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Apr;33(4):539-550. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4277-6. Epub 2018 Jan 16.
2
Oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies: systematic review and meta-analysis.用于高血压急症的口服药物:系统评价与荟萃分析。
Sao Paulo Med J. 2009 Nov;127(6):366-72. doi: 10.1590/s1516-31802009000600009.
3
Comparative tolerability profile of hypertensive crisis treatments.高血压危象治疗的耐受性比较概况
Drug Saf. 1998 Aug;19(2):99-122. doi: 10.2165/00002018-199819020-00003.
4
Fenoldopam: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and intravenous clinical potential in the management of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies.非诺多泮:其药效学和药代动力学特性以及在高血压急症和紧急情况管理中的静脉临床应用潜力综述。
Drugs. 1997 Oct;54(4):634-50. doi: 10.2165/00003495-199754040-00008.