Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Comparison Between Clevidipine and Nicardipine in Cerebrovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Publisher Pubmed



Seifi A1 ; Azari Jafari A2 ; Mirmoeeni S2 ; Shah M3 ; Azari Jafari M4 ; Nazari S5 ; Asgarzadeh S6 ; Godoy DA7
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Division of Neuro Critical Care, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio School of Medicine, San Antonio, TX, United States
  2. 2. Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran
  3. 3. Deccan College of Medical Sciences, Owaisi Hospital and Research Centre, Telangana State, Hyderabad, India
  4. 4. Department of Cell & Molecular Biology, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran
  5. 5. Department of Neuroscience and Addiction Studies, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  6. 6. Department of Neurology, Urmia Medical Science University (UMSU), Urmia, Iran
  7. 7. Neurointensive Care Unit, Sanatorio Pasteur
  8. 8. Hospital Carlos Malbran, Catamarca, Argentina

Source: Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Published:2023


Abstract

Purpose: The term “cerebrovascular diseases (CVDs)” refers to a broad category of diseases that affect the brain's blood vessels and cerebral circulation. Controlling acute hypertension (HTN) by antihypertensive drugs such as clevidipine and nicardipine can be a highly efficient method of lowering the incidence of CVDs. Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis study. The PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science online databases and a gray literature search were performed to identify potentially eligible studies. The included studies were observational studies that compared adult patients receiving clevidipine or nicardipine for controlling HTN in the setting of CVD. Results: We reviewed 5 final included articles, including 546 patients. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) for time to goal SBP was − 0.04 (95 % CI: [−0.66; 0.58], p-value: 0.86, I2: 79.0 %, pooled MD: −12.90 min), meaning that the clevidipine group had a shorter time to goal systolic blood pressure (SBP) than the nicardipine group. The pooled SMD for total volume infusion was − 0.52 (95 % CI: [−0.93; −0.12], p-value: 0.03, I2: 0.0 %, pooled MD: −1118.81 mL), showing a notably lower total volume infused into patients in the clevidipine group. Conclusions: We found that clevidipine reaches the SBP goal faster than nicardipine; however, there was no statistically significant difference between the two drugs. The total volume infused to achieve the goal SBP was significantly lower in the clevidipine group. Further prospective studies are needed to compare clevidipine and nicardipine in CVD patients on a large scale. © 2023 Elsevier B.V.
Other Related Docs
47. Effect of Stevia on Blood Glucose and Hba1c: A Meta-Analysis, Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews (2024)