Comparison of urapidil and nicardipine in the treatment of chronic renal failure patients with hypertensive emergencies

WU Rui; DONG Ziping; WANG Shengqi; QIN Jian

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2016.03.019

Message Board

Respected readers, authors and reviewers, you can add comments to this page on any questions about the contribution, review, editing and publication of this journal. We will give you an answer as soon as possible. Thank you for your support!

Name

E-mail

Phone

Title

Content

Verification Code

Objective To study the efficacies and adverse reactions of urapidil and nicardipine in the treatment of the chronic renal failure patients with hypertensive emergencies. Methods 59 chronic renal failure patients with hypertensive emergencies were randomly divided into nicardipine treatment group and urapidil treatment group. The patients in the nicardipine group were given a 1 mg nicardipine intravenous injection, and 30-100 μg/min intravenous transfusion was given continuously. The patients in the urapidil group were given a 12.5 mg urapidil intravenous injection, and 150-500 μg/min intravenous transfusion was given continuously. The dosage were changed according to the patients' blood pressure in both of the groups. The patients' blood pressure, heart rate and adverse reactions were recorded. Results The patients' blood pressure in both of the groups were significantly lower after treatment (P<0.05). The SBP in nicardipine treatment group was significant lower than SBP in urapidil treatment group in the first hour after treatment (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in SBP between the two groups 2 hours after treatment (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in DBP between the two groups after treatment (P>0.05). In the nicardipine group, the heart rate rose after the treatment, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).While in the urapidil group, the heart rate went down after the treatment, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Both of nicardipine and urapidil were effective in the treatment of chronic renal failure patients with emergency hypertensive. Nicardipine was more effective in reducing the SBP in the first stage of treatment.

Comparison of urapidil and nicardipine in the treatment of chronic renal failure patients with hypertensive emergencies

1. Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100053, China

2. Department of Emergency, General Hospital of North China Petroleum Administration Bureau, Renqiu 062552, China

3. Department of Emergency, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100053, China

Received Date: 2015-03-24

Rev Recd Date: 2015-11-06

Key words:

Abstract: Objective To study the efficacies and adverse reactions of urapidil and nicardipine in the treatment of the chronic renal failure patients with hypertensive emergencies. Methods 59 chronic renal failure patients with hypertensive emergencies were randomly divided into nicardipine treatment group and urapidil treatment group. The patients in the nicardipine group were given a 1 mg nicardipine intravenous injection, and 30-100 μg/min intravenous transfusion was given continuously. The patients in the urapidil group were given a 12.5 mg urapidil intravenous injection, and 150-500 μg/min intravenous transfusion was given continuously. The dosage were changed according to the patients' blood pressure in both of the groups. The patients' blood pressure, heart rate and adverse reactions were recorded. Results The patients' blood pressure in both of the groups were significantly lower after treatment (P<0.05). The SBP in nicardipine treatment group was significant lower than SBP in urapidil treatment group in the first hour after treatment (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in SBP between the two groups 2 hours after treatment (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in DBP between the two groups after treatment (P>0.05). In the nicardipine group, the heart rate rose after the treatment, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).While in the urapidil group, the heart rate went down after the treatment, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Both of nicardipine and urapidil were effective in the treatment of chronic renal failure patients with emergency hypertensive. Nicardipine was more effective in reducing the SBP in the first stage of treatment.

HTML

Reference (11)

[1]	中国高血压防治指南修订委员会. 中国高血压防治指南(2005年修订版)[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2006.
[2]	孙菁, 周进祝. 内科学[M]. 8版. 北京:科学出版社, 2003:268.
[3]	张龙友, 刘易新, 于东明. 尼卡地平静脉注射治疗高血压急症25例临床观察[J]. 医学研究杂志, 2009, 38(10):57-59.
[4]	Denolle T, Sassano P, Allain H,et al. Effects of nicardipine and clonidine on cognitive functions and electroencephalograpy in hypertensive patients[J]. Fundam Clin Pharmacol, 2002, 16(6):527-535.
[5]	田国祥, 孟庆义. 高血压急症治疗.尼卡地平的兴起[J]. 中国循证心血管医学杂志, 2010, 2(1):6-8.
[6]	Suzuki S, Ohesuka S, Ishikawa K,et al. Effects of nicardipine on coronary, vertebral and renal arterial flows in patients with essential hypertension[J]. Hypertens Res, 2003, 26(3):193-199.
[7]	王涛, 秦俭, 王晶, 等.尼卡地平和乌拉地尔治疗高血压急症的比较[J]. 现代生物医学进展, 2011, 11(21):4065-4067.
[8]	姜成菊, 邱家学, 徐韵, 等. 尼卡地平治疗高血压急症的Meta分析[J]. 中国药物应用与监测, 2013, 10(5):245-251.
[9]	宋尚明, 朱兴雷, 周生芬, 等. 乌拉地尔和尼卡地平治疗高血压急症的比较[J]. 中国新药与临床杂志,2005, 24(10):795-798.
[10]	刘学敏, 殷春阳. 乌拉地尔和尼卡地平治疗高血压急症的疗效比较[J]. 医药导报, 2012, 31(9):1158-1160.
[11]	谢云燕, 秦俭, 牛秋丽, 等. 乌拉地尔和尼卡地平对老年高血压急症的疗效及安全性比较[J]. 中华老年心脑血管病杂志, 2014, 4(16):370-373.

Message Board

Comparison of urapidil and nicardipine in the treatment of chronic renal failure patients with hypertensive emergencies

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-0111.2016.03.019

Abstract

References

Proportional views

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Article Metrics

Related

Proportional views