Clevidipine versus sodium nitroprusside in acute aortic dissection: A retrospective chart review.

AIM: 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 162mm Hg vs 161mm 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 1.03h [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.

Prevalence of Delirium and Coma In Mechanically Ventilated Patients Sedated With Dexmedetomidine or Propofol.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of delirium and coma in mechanically ventilated patients sedated with dexmedetomidine or propofol alone; to evaluate the hospital length of stay for both treatment groups; and to evaluate the level of sedation, adverse effects, and hospital outcomes. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed retrospectively for patients who were admitted to the medical or surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in a 591-bed teaching hospital and who received either dexmedetomidine or propofol alone for 24 hours or more for sedation. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were included in the study, with 56 patients in the dexmedetomidine group and 55 patients in the propofol group. Results of the analysis showed that the propofol group had a higher prevalence of coma (43.6% versus 12.5%; P < 0.001). Dexmedetomidine patients had a longer median hospital length of stay of 23.5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 11.5-39.5 days) versus 15.0 days (IQR, 7.0-24.0 days; P = 0.01). The rates of delirium were similar in both groups, with 16% in dexmedetomidine-treated patients versus 20% in propofol-treated patients (P = 0.63). CONCLUSION: No difference in the prevalence of delirium was found when comparing the dexmedetomidine- and propofol-treated groups. Propofol was associated with more coma and oversedation; dexmedetomidine was associated with longer time to extubation, longer length of stay in the ICU, and longer hospital length of stay.