Efficacy of sublingual nifedipine and intravenous urapidil for treatment of acute postoperative hypertension.
- Author:
Zhi WANG
1
;
Dao-feng WANG
;
Ning LOU
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Administration, Sublingual; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; administration & dosage; Female; Humans; Hypertension; drug therapy; etiology; Injections, Intravenous; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasms; surgery; Nifedipine; administration & dosage; Piperazines; administration & dosage; Postoperative Complications; drug therapy; Retrospective Studies
- From: Journal of Southern Medical University 2011;31(2):317-319
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVETo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual nifedipine and intravenous urapidil in the treatment of acute postoperative hypertension.
METHODSThe clinical data of 215 patients with APH after tumorectomy were retrospectively analyzed, among whom 165 were treated with sublingual nifedipine and 50 with intravenously urapidil.
RESULTSTreatment with sublingual nifedipine caused a reduction of the systolic blood pressure by 5.9% and diastolic blood pressure by 5.2%. Urapidil treatment resulted in significantly greater reductions in the systolic and diastolic blood pressures (by 12.1% and 8.6%, respectively) (P(s)<0.001, P(d)=0.019). Urapidil treatment was associated with a significantly higher rate of adequate antihypertensive effect than nifedipine treatment (68% vs 35.8%, P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONAlthough both urapidil and nifedipine are associated with minimal adverse effects, intravenous urapidil shows better therapeutic effect than sublingual nifedipine and is more suitable for the treatment of APH.
