TY - JOUR T1 - Blood Pressure Control in Acute Stroke: Labetalol or Nicardipine? AU - El-Ghoroury,Heba, AU - Sudekum,David M, AU - Hecht,Jason P, Y1 - 2021/06/30/ PY - 2021/04/21/received PY - 2021/06/10/accepted PY - 2021/7/4/pubmed PY - 2021/9/8/medline PY - 2021/7/3/entrez SP - 105959 EP - 105959 JF - Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association JO - J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis VL - 30 IS - 9 N2 - PURPOSE: To assess the safety and efficacy of continuous infusion (CIV)-labetalol compared to -nicardipine in controlling blood pressure (BP) in the acute stroke setting. MATERIALS: Patients were eligible if they had a diagnosis of an acute stroke and were administered either CIV-labetalol or CIV-nicardipine. Study outcomes were assessed within the first 24 h of the antihypertensive infusion. RESULTS: A total of 3,093 patients were included with 3,008 patients in the CIV-nicardipine group and 85 in the CIV-labetalol group. No significant difference was observed in percent time at goal BP between the nicardipine (82%) and labetalol (85%) groups (p = 0.351). There was also no difference in BP variability between nicardipine (37%) and labetalol (39%) groups (p = 0.433). Labetalol was found to have a shorter time to goal BP as compared to nicardipine (24 min vs. 40 min; p = 0.021). While CIV-nicardipine did have a higher incidence of tachycardia compared to labetalol (17% vs. 4%; p <0.001), the incidence of hypotension (13% vs. 15%; p = 0.620) and bradycardia (24% vs. 22%; p = 0.797) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that CIV-labetalol and CIV-nicardipine are comparable in safety and efficacy in controlling BP for patients with acute stroke. SN - 1532-8511 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/34217067/Blood_Pressure_Control_in_Acute_Stroke:_Labetalol_or_Nicardipine L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1052-3057(21)00362-1 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -