Clevidipine versus sodium nitroprusside in acute aortic dissection: A retrospective chart review
Intravenous vasodilators are often added to beta-blocking agents to reach blood pressure (BP) goals in aortic dissection. Control of BP using clevidipine has been described in hypertensive emergencies and cardiac surgery but not in aortic dissection. The aim of this study was to compare clevidipine versus sodium nitroprusside (SNP) as adjunct agents to esmolol for BP management in aortic dissection.Methods:
A single-center retrospective chart review evaluated patients diagnosed with aortic dissection. The primary outcome measure was time to reach patient specific systolic blood pressure (SBPPT) goals after initiation of esmolol infusion. Efficacy of clevidipine and SNP was assessed using area under the curve analysis of positive and negative excursions outside of SBPPT goals (AUCSBPe). Cost data was calculated using average wholesale price in U.S. dollars.Results:
Fourteen patients were included in final analyses. Median systolic BP immediately prior to initiation of esmolol was 162 mm Hg vs 161 mm Hg for clevidipine and SNP groups, respectively (p = 0.99). Median time to reach SBPPT goal was similar between clevidipine and SNP (1.68 versus 1.03 h [p = 0.99]). Median AUCSBPe was similar for clevidipine and SNP (206.9 versus 538.9 mm Hg * min * hr−1 [p = 0.11]). Cost was significantly reduced using clevidipine versus SNP ($1223.28/day versus $7674.24/day [p < 0.001]).Conclusions:
Clevidipine administration during initial medical management of aortic dissection showed similar efficacy compared to SNP when used as adjunct therapy to esmolol. These data suggest clevidipine is a less costly, reasonable alternative to SNP in acute aortic dissection as adjunct therapy to esmolol. Further studies are needed to validate these results.