Comparison of intermittent versus continuous infusion antihypertensives in acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach to blood pressure (BP) management in acute ischemic stroke remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if an intermittent (labetalol or hydralazine) or continuous infusion (nicardipine or clevidipine) antihypertensive strategy facilitated timelier alteplase administration.

METHODS

Patients ≥18 years who presented to the emergency department (ED) between September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2020, received alteplase for acute ischemic stroke, and required BP management with an intravenous antihypertensive were included in this multicenter, retrospective cohort study. Exclusion criteria were initial administration of a non-study antihypertensive, initial study antihypertensive administration >2 hours prior to or any time following alteplase, or receipt of both an intermittent and continuous infusion antihypertensive prior to alteplase. The primary endpoint was the time from ED presentation to alteplase administration.

RESULTS

During the study period, 122 patients received an intermittent antihypertensive and 57 patients received a continuous infusion antihypertensive. The median door-to-needle time was 53 minutes for patients who received an intermittent antihypertensive compared to 57 minutes for those who received a continuous infusion antihypertensive (p=0.17). Secondarily, the proportion of patients who achieved the BP target <185/110 mmHg within 15 minutes of initial antihypertensive administration and the incidence of adverse events were similar between treatment groups. In cost analysis, intermittent antihypertensives were less expensive than continuous infusion antihypertensives ($2.20 vs. $71.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with acute ischemic stroke and uncontrolled BP, the initial use of an intermittent or continuous infusion antihypertensive did not significantly impact the time to alteplase administration.