4.5 Article

Clevidipine in acute heart failure: Results of the A Study of Blood Pressure Control in Acute Heart Failure-A Pilot Study (PRONTO)

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 167, Issue 4, Pages 529-536

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.12.023

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Rapid blood pressure (BP) control improves dyspnea in hypertensive acute heart failure (AHF). Although effective antihypertensives, calcium-channel blockers are poorly studied in AHF. Clevidipine is a rapidly acting, arterial selective intravenous calcium-channel blocker. Our purpose was to determine the efficacy and safety of clevidipine vs standardof- care intravenous antihypertensive therapy (SOC) in hypertensive AHF. Methods This is a randomized, open-label, active control study of clevidipine vs SOC in emergency department patients with AHF having systolic BP >= 160 mm Hg and dyspnea >= 50 on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Coprimary end points were median time to, and percent attaining, a systolic BP within a prespecified target BP range (TBPR) at 30 minutes. Dyspnea reduction was the main secondary end point. Results Of 104 patients (mean [SD] age 61 [14.9] years, 52% female, 80% African American), 51 received clevidipine and 53 received SOC. Baseline mean (SD) systolic BP and VAS dyspnea were 186.5 (23.4) mm Hg and 64.8 (19.6) mm. More clevidipine patients (71%) reached TBPR than did those receiving SOC (37%; P =.002), and clevidipine was faster to TBPR (P =.0006). At 45 minutes, clevidipine patients had greater mean (SD) VAS dyspnea improvement than did SOC patients (-37 [20.9] vs -28 mm [21.7], P =.02), a difference that remained significant up to 3 hours. Serious adverse events (24% vs 19%) and 30-day mortality (3 vs 2) were similar between clevedipine and SOC, respectively, and there were no deaths during study drug administration. Conclusions In hypertensive AHF, clevidipine safely and rapidly reduces BP and improves dyspnea more effectively than SOC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available