Zampaglione B, Pascale C, Marchisio M, Santoro A
Emergency Department, Martini Hospital, Turin, Italy.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1994;23 Suppl 5:S116-8. doi: 10.1097/00005344-199423005-00027.
This study estimated the efficacy of sublingual nifedipine 10 mg vs. sublingual lacidipine 4 mg in the management of hypertensive crises. We studied 40 patients with diastolic blood pressure > or = 120 mm Hg, who were divided into two groups of 20. Blood pressure and heart rate were assessed in the recumbent position before treatment and after 30, 120, and 240 min. Comparison of the effectiveness of these drugs was analyzed by Student's t test. Both drugs tested revealed a statistically significant hypotensive effect on diastolic and systolic blood pressure, and few side effects. Compared with lacidipine, nifedipine had a greater hypotensive effect on diastolic and systolic blood pressure in the first 30 min and on the diastolic blood pressure after the first 120 min. However, the hypotensive effect of lacidipine is statistically significant. After 4 h, both drugs showed a similar efficacy without significant statistical variations. We concluded that in the management of hypertensive crises the use of each of these drugs can have a particular range: nifedipine can be used when a pronounced and rapid blood pressure decrement is necessary, whereas lacidipine can be used when a more gradual effect is preferable.
本研究评估了10毫克舌下含服硝苯地平与4毫克舌下含服拉西地平在治疗高血压危象中的疗效。我们研究了40例舒张压≥120毫米汞柱的患者，将其分为两组，每组20例。在治疗前及治疗后30、120和240分钟时评估卧位血压和心率。通过学生t检验分析这两种药物疗效的比较。所测试的两种药物均显示出对舒张压和收缩压有统计学显著的降压作用，且副作用较少。与拉西地平相比，硝苯地平在最初30分钟对舒张压和收缩压的降压作用更大，在最初120分钟后对舒张压的降压作用更大。然而，拉西地平的降压作用具有统计学显著性。4小时后，两种药物显示出相似的疗效，无显著统计学差异。我们得出结论，在治疗高血压危象时，使用这两种药物中的任何一种都有其特定范围：当需要显著且快速降低血压时可使用硝苯地平，而当更倾向于较缓慢的效果时可使用拉西地平。
