Comparison of clevidipine vs nicardipine in the treatment of hypertensive urgency and emergency in critically ill patients

Abstract Purpose Evidence has suggested that clevidipine may provide faster blood pressure (BP) reduction with less volume than nicardipine in stroke and cardiothoracic surgery patients, but its use in hypertensive crises has not been well established. The primary objective of this study was to compare the treatment success of clevidipine and nicardipine in hypertensive crisis. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study including patients who received either clevidipine or nicardipine for treatment of hypertensive crisis. The primary outcome was the time from infusion start to attainment of goal BP, defined as the higher value of the guideline-directed 25% reduction in BP or the physician-ordered goal. Secondary outcomes were the time from infusion start to guideline-directed 25% reduction in BP, drug and total volume intake, the time from order entry to BP goal attainment, the number of BP and heart rate excursions, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and study medication cost. Results In total, 182 patients were included in the study (103 receiving nicardipine and 79 receiving clevidipine). Time to goal BP was similar between the groups (35 vs 33 minutes for clevidipine vs nicardipine, respectively; P = 0.37). Time to guideline-directed 25% reduction was also similar (P = 0.42). Volume from study drug was significantly less with clevidipine (222 vs 518 mL; P = 0.01); however, the total volume received in the ICU was similar (3,370 vs 3,383 mL; P = 0.43). Percent time in the goal BP range was similar (43.1% vs 42.3%). The cost of clevidipine was $199.37 per vial (based on the average wholesale price as of June 2023). This cost was 682% higher than that for a bag of nicardipine. Conclusion Time to goal BP was similar for clevidipine and nicardipine in this population. Any decreases in medication-associated volume with clevidipine were no longer evident when all volume sources were considered. These results show that clevidipine may not provide meaningful benefit in this heterogenous population. The difference in cost does not seem justified given the lack of improvement in clinically relevant outcomes.