Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertensive urgencies and emergencies are common clinical occurrences in hypertensive patients. Treatment practices vary considerably to because of the lack of evidence supporting the use of one therapeutic agent over another. This paper was designed to review the evidence for various pharmacotherapeutic regimens in the management of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies, in terms of the agents’ abilities to reach predetermined “safe” goal blood pressures (BPs), and to prevent adverse events.
METHODS:medline was searched from 1966 to 2001, and the reference lists of all the articles were retrieved and searched for relevant references, and experts in the field were contacted to identify other relevant studies. The Cochrane Library was also searched. Studies that were eligible for inclusion in this review were systematic reviews of randomized control trials (RCTs) and individual RCTs, all-or-none studies, systematic reviews of cohort studies and individual cohort studies, and outcomes research. No language restrictions were used.
RESULTS: None of the trials included in this review identified an optimal rate of BP lowering in hypertensive emergencies and urgencies. The defintions of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies were not consistent, but emergencies always involved target end-organ damage, and urgencies were without such damage. Measures of outcome were not uniform between studies. The 4 hypertensive emergency and 15 hypertensive urgency studies represented 236 and 1,074 patients, respectively. The evidence indicated a nonsignificant trend toward increased efficacy with urapidil compared to nitroprusside for hypertensive emergencies (number needed to treat [NNT] for urapidil to achieve target BP, 12; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], number of patients needed to harm [NNH], 5 to NNT, 40 compared to nitroprusside). Several medications were efficacious in treating hypertensive urgencies, including: nicardipine (NNT for nicardipine compared to plabebo, 2 in one study [95% CI, 1 to 5] and 1 in another [95% CI, 1 to 1]); lacidipine (NNT, 2; 95% CI, 1 to 8 for lacidipine vs nifedipine) or urapidil (NNT for urapidil compared to enalaprilat and nifedipine, 4; 95% CI, 3 to 6); and nitroprusside and fenoldopam (all patients reached target BP in 2 studies). The studies reported 2 cases of cerebral ischemia secondary to nifedipine.
CONCLUSIONS: May effective agents exist for the treatment of hypertensive crises. Because of the lack of large randomized controlled trials, many questions remain unanswered, such as follow-up times and whether any of the studied agents have mortality benefit.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kitiyakara C, Guzman N. Malignant hypertension and hypertensive emergencies. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1998;9:133–42.
Zampaglione B, Pascale C, Marchisio M, Cavallo-Perin P. Hypertensive urgencies and emergencies. Prevalence and clinical presentation. Hypertension. 1996;27:144–7.
Kincaid-Smith P, McMichael J, Murphy EA. The clinical course and pathology of hypertension with papilloedema (malignant hypertension). QJM. 1958;37:117–53.
Bechgaard P, Kopp H, Neilson J. One thousand hypertensive patients followed from 16–22 years. Acta Med Scand. 1956;312(suppl):175–83.
Haynes RB, Wilczynski C, McKibbon A, Walker C, Sinclair J. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1:447–58.
Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Hagro RB. Evidence-Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach Evidence-Based Medicine. 2nd ed. London: Churchill Livingston; 2000.
Mount Sinai Hospital-University Health Network. 2000. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine: NNT Tables. Available at: http://www.mtsinai.on.ca/masterframe.htm. Accessed April 12, 2001.
Hirschl MM, Binder M, Bur A, et al. Safety and efficacy of urapidil and sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of hypertensive emergencies. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:885–8.
Hirschl MM, Seidler D, Zeiner A, et al. Intravenous urapidil versus sublingual nifedipine in the treatment of hypertensive urgencies. Am J Emerg Med. 1993;11:653–6.
Franklin C, Nightengale S, Mambani B. A randomized comparison of nifedipine and sodium nitroprusside in severe hypertension. Chest. 1993;90:500–3.
Komsuoglu B, Sengun B, Bayram A, Komsuoglu SS. Treatment of hypertensive urgencies with oral nifedipine, nicardipine, and captopril. Angiology. 1991;42:447–54.
Jaker M, Atkin S, Soto M, Schmid G, Brosch F. Oral nifedipine vs. oral clonidine in the treatment of urgent hypertension. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:260–5.
Zeller KR, Kuhnert LV, Matthews C. Rapid reduction of severe asymptomatic hypertension: a prospective, controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:2186–9.
Rutledge J, Ayers C, Davidson R, et al. Effect of intravenous enalaprilat in moderate and severe hypertension. Am J Cardiol. 1988;62:1062–67.
Rohr G, Reimnitz P, Blanke P. Treatment of hypertensive emergency. Comparison of a new dosage form of the calcium antagonist nitrendipine with nifedipine capsules. Intensive Care Med. 1994;20:268–71.
McDonald AJ, Yealy DM, Jacobson S. Oral labetalol vs. oral nifedipine in hypertensive emergencies in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 1993;11:460–3.
Panacek EA, Bednarczyk EM, Dunbar LM, Foulke GE, Holcslaw TL. Randomized, prospective trial of fenoldopam vs. sodium nitroprusside in the treatment of acute severe hypertension. Acad Emerg Med. 1995;2:959–65.
Pilmer BL, Green JA, Panacek EA, et al. Fenoldopam mesylate versus sodium nitroprusside in the acute management of severe systemic hypertension. J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;33:549–53.
Reisin E, Huth M. Intravenous fenoldopam versus sodium nitroprusside in patients with severe hypertension. Hypertension. 1990;15(suppl I):159–162.
Gonzalez ER, Peterson MA, Racht EM, Ornato JP, Due DL. Dose-response evaluation of oral labetalol in patients presenting to the emergency department with accelerated hypertension. Ann Emerg Med. 1991;20:333–8.
Angeli P, Chiesa M, Caregaro L, et al. Comparison of sublingual captopril and nifedipine in immediate treatment of hypertensive emergencies. A randomized, single-blind clinical trial. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:678–82.
Wallin JD, Fletcher E, Ram CV, et al. Intravenous nicardipine for the treatment of severe hypertension: a double-blind, placebocontrolled multicenter trial. Arch Intern Med. 1989; 149:2662–9.
Pascale C, Zampaglione B, Marchisio M. Management of hypertensive crisis: nifedipine in comparison with captopril, clonidine and furosemide. Curr Ther Res. 1992;51:9–18.
Hirschl MM, Seidler D, Mullner M, et al. Efficacy of different antihypertensive drugs in the emergency department. J Human Hypertension. 1996;24:1684–9.
Sanchez M, Sobrino J, Ribera L, Adrian AJ, Torres M, Coca A. Long-acting lacidipine versus short-acting nifedipine in the treatment of acute asymptomatic acute blood pressure increase. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1999;33:479–84.
Habib GB, Dunbar LM, Rodrigues R, Neale AC, Friday KJ. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of oral nicardipine in the treatment of urgent hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trial. Am Heart J. 1995;129:917–23.
Psaty BM, Guralnik JM, Corti MC, et al. The risk of myocardial infarction associated with antihypertensive drug therapies. JAMA. 1995;274:620–5.
Epstein M. Calcium antagonists should continue to be first-line treatment of hypertension. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:2150–6.
Messerli FH. Case-control study, meta-analysis and bouillabaisse: putting the calcium antagonist scare into context. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:888–9.
Ramsay LE, Williams B, Johnston GD, et al. for the British Hypertension Society. Guidelines for the management of hypertension: report of the Third Working Party of the British Hypertension Society. J Hum Hypertens. 1999;13:569–92.
Feldman RD, Campbell N, Larochelle P, et al. for the Task Force for the Development of the 1999 Canadian Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension. 1999 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension. CMAJ. 1999;161(suppl 12):1–17.
The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention. Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of Hypertension. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2413–46.
De Sanctis RW, Doroghazi RM, Austen WG. Aortic dissection. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1060–7.
Crawford ES. The diagnosis and management of aortic dissection. JAMA. 1990;264:2537–41.
Erbel R, Alfonso F, Boileau C, et al. Diagnosis and management of aortic dissection. Eur Heart J. 2001;22:1642–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Received from the Department of Medicine, Toronto Genral Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cherney, D., Straus, S. Management of patients with hypertensive urgencies and emergencies. J GEN INTERN MED 17, 937–945 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.20389.x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.20389.x