Category Archives: PACULit
2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout
GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR PREVENTION, DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF COPD: 2024 Report
2014 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases
Anaphylaxis 2
Management of Hypertensive Emergency
Introduction
- Hypertensive emergency is characterized by systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 180 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > 120 mmHg with evidence of target organ damage.
- Rapid blood pressure lowering with intravenous antihypertensives is warranted to prevent further organ damage.
- Patients presenting with intracranial hemorrhage, aortic dissection, preeclampsia, or pheochromocytoma crisis should achieve target blood pressure within one hour of presentation.
- Current literature lacks evidence of mortality benefit with any one antihypertensive drug. Selection of a medication should consider target organ(s) affected, underlying disease states, and time to target blood pressure.
Treatment in Selected Co-Morbidities
| Condition | BP Goal | Preferred Agents |
| Acute aortic dissection | SBP < 120 mmHg within 20 min | Esmolol Labetalol Nicardipine Nitroprusside |
| Eclampsia or Preeclampsia | SBP < 140 mmHg within 1 hour | Nicardipine Labetalol Hydralazine |
| Pheochromocytoma (catecholamine excess) | SBP < 140 mmHg within 1 hour | Nicardipine Phentolamine* |
| Intracranial hemorrhage | SBP < 160 mmHg within 6 hours | Nicardipine Labetalol |
| Acute ischemic stroke | Pre-alteplase: < 185/110 mmHg Post-alteplase: < 180/105 for 24 hours No thrombolytic: SBP reduced 15% in 24 hours** | Nicardipine Labetalol |
**Permissive hypertension may be reasonable; maintain SBP < 220 mmHg or DBP < 120 mmHg
Pharmacology: Intravenous Antihypertensives
| First-line Agents | |||||
| Medication | Class | Onset | Duration | Dosing | Clinical Pearls |
| Nicardipine | Ca channel blocker | IV: 5-10 min | IV: 2-6 hours | Initial: 5 mg/hr Titration: 2.5 mg/hr every 15 min Maximum: 15 mg/hr | No dose adjustments in elderly patients |
| Esmolol | Beta-blocker | IV: 1-2 min | IV: 10-20 min | Bolus: 500-1,000 mcg/kg Initial: 50 mcg/kg/min Titration: repeat bolus dose, then increase by 50 mcg/kg/ min every 10 min Maximum: 200 mcg/kg/min | Contraindications: Bradycardia Decompensated HF |
| Labetalol | Beta-blocker Alpha-1 antagonist | IV: 2-5 min Peak: 5-15 min | IV: 2-6 hours Peak: 18 hours | Bolus: 10-20 mg IV push every 10 min IV infusion: 0.5 – 10 mg/min titrated 1-2 mg/min every 2 hours Maximum: 300 mg total | Precaution: Second-/thirddegree heart block Bradycardia Heart failure |
| Second-line Agents | |||||
| Phentolamine* | Non-selective alpha antagonist | IV: Seconds | IV: 15 min | Initial: 5 mg IV push May repeat every 10 min PRN | Useful in catecholamine excess and clonidine withdrawal |
| Nitroglycerin | NOdependent vasodilator | IV: 2-5 min | IV: 5-10 min | ACS: Initial: 5 mcg/min Titration: 5 mcg/ min every 3-5 min Maximum: 20 mcg/min Pulmonary edema: Initial: 100-200 mcg/min Titration: 50 mcg/min every 3-5 min Maximum: 400 mcg/min | Indicated in ACS or pulmonary edema Use caution in volume-depleted patients |
| Sodium nitroprusside | NOdependent vasodilator | IV: Seconds | IV: 1-2 min | Initial: 0.3-0.5 mcg/kg/min Titration: 0.5 mcg/kg/min every 1 min Maximum: 10 mcg/kg/min | Requires intra-arterial BP monitoring Tachyphylaxis and cyanide toxicity with prolonged use – Limit treatment duration |
| Hydralazine | Direct vasodilator | IV: 10 min IM: 20 min | IV: 1-4 hours IM: 2-6 hours | Initial: 10-20 mg IV push Repeat every 4-6 hours PRN | Not available as an IV infusion |
| Enalaprilat | ACE inhibitor | IV: 15-30 min | IV: 12-24 hours | Initial: 1.25 mg IV over 5 min Titration: increase by 5 mg every 6 hours as needed | Slow onset (~15 min) Contraindications: Pregnancy MI Bilateral renal stenosis |
Overview of Evidence
| Author (Title), Year | Design | Purpose | Outcome |
| Anderson (INTERACT), 2008 | RCT (N=404) | Comparison of BP goals (SBP < 140 vs SBP < 180) in patients with acute ICH | Mean hematoma expansion was smaller in the intensive group (13.7% vs 36.3%) No difference in death or disability at 3 months (48% vs 49%) Limitation: included patients with SBP > 150 mmHg, over 30% of patients were treated with oral antihypertensive therapy |
| Quereshi (ATACH-2), 2016 | RCT (N=1,000) | Comparison of BP goals (SBP 110-139 vs SBP 179-140) in patients with acute ICH | All patients received nicardipine infusion No difference between death or disability at 3 months (38.7% vs 37.7%) Increased renal adverse events within 24 hours in the intensive group (9.0% vs 4.0%) Limitation: mean SBP differed by only 10 mmHg between groups 2 hours post-randomization (129 mmHg vs 141 mmHg) |
| Peacock (CLUE), 2011 | RCT (N=226) | Nicardipine IV infusion versus labetalol IV bolus for management of hypertensive emergency | Patients receiving nicardipine were more likely to reach target BP within 30 min (91.7% vs 82.5%) Rescue antihypertensive use did not differ significantly between groups within first 6 hours Limitation: only 63.3% of patients had evidence of target organ damage at randomization |
| Yang, 2004 | Prospective cohort (N=40) | Nitroprusside IV versus nicardipine IV for hypertensive emergency with pulmonary edema | No significant difference between blood pressure readings across groups at any time point No adverse events reported in either group Limitation: nicardipine dosing started at 3 mcg/kg/min (12.5 mg/hr in a 70 kg patient) |
Conclusions
- Selection of a first-line antihypertensive should consider compelling indications and acute blood pressure goals, as robust literature comparing long-term outcomes across drug classes is lacking for most indications.
- Nicardipine may provide more consistent blood pressure control than labetalol. This is particularly important in patients with acute stroke, as large fluctuations in blood pressure are believed to negatively impact cerebral perfusion.
- Aggressive lowering of SBP less than 140 mmHg in patients with acute ICH has not been shown to improve long-term outcomes and may negatively impact renal perfusion.
- Nicardipine has been shown to provide similar blood pressure control to nitroprusside. In patients with acute ICH, nitroprusside use within 24-hours of presentation was associated with higher in-hospital mortality.
References
- Whelton, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults. J Amer Heart Assoc 2018;71(6):e13-e115.
- Benken ST. Hypertensive emergencies. CCSAP 2018;1:7-30.
- Anderson, et al. Intensive blood pressure reduction in acute cerebral haemorrhage trial (INTERACT): a randomised pilot trial. Lancet Neurol 2008;7:391-9.
- Quereshi, et al. Intensive blood-pressure lowering in patients with acute cerebral hemorrhage. New Engl J Med 2016;375(11):1033-43.
- Peacock WF, et al. CLUE: a randomized comparative effectiveness trial of IV nicardipine versus labetalol use in the emergency department. Critical Care 2011;15(R157):1-8.
- Yang HJ, Kim JG, Lim YS, et al. Nicardipine versus nitroprusside infusion as antihypertensive therapy in hypertensive emergencies. J Int Med Res 2004;32:118-23.
Fibrinolytics for STEMI
Introduction
- Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy during a cardiac arrest; thrombolytic therapy is an option without PCI capability, followed by transfer to a PCI capable center.
- Thrombolytic therapy is most effective when administered within 30 minutes of first medical contact, however, may be considered within 12 – 24 hours of symptom onset and ongoing ischemia or extensive ST elevation.
- During ACS-Induced Cardiac Arrest, the goal for fibrinolysis is 30 minutes and reperfusion with PCI is preferred, however, if PCI is delayed, fibrinolytics therapy could be considered.
Pharmacology
| Alteplase | Tenecteplase | |
| MOA | Initiates fibrinolysis by binding to fibrin in a thrombus and converts entrapped plasminogen to plasmin | Promotes initiation of fibrinolysis by binding to fibrin and converting plasminogen to plasmin; similar to alteplase but more fibrin specific |
| Dose | Weight based: > 67kg: infuse 15mg IV bolus over 1-2 minute, followed by 50mg infusion over 30 minutes, then 35mg over 1 hour (max total dose 100mg) ≤ 67kg: : infuse 15mg IV bolus over 1-2 minutes, followed by 0.75mg/kg infusion over 30 minutes, then 0.5mg/kg over 1 hour (max total dose 100mg) | Weight based: < 60kg: 30mg ≥ 60 to < 70kg: 35mg ≥ 70 to < 80kg: 40mg ≥ 80 to < 90kg: 45mg ≥ 90kg: 50mg |
| Administration | • Bolus administered over 1 minute followed by infusion | • Single bolus over 5 seconds |
| PK/PD | Duration: 1 hour after infusion terminated Distribution: approximates plasma volume Half-life elimination: 5 minutes Excretion: hepatic and plasma clearance | Distribution: weight related Metabolism: hepatic Half-life elimination: biphasic; initial 20-24 min, terminal 90-130 min Excretion: plasma clearance |
| Adverse Effects | Intracranial hemorrhage Ecchymosis GI/GU hemorrhage Sepsis Cerebrovascular accident | Hemorrhage and hematoma Cerebrovascular accident |
| Drug Interactions and Warnings | Tranexamic acid, avoid combination Internal bleeding, thromboembolic events, cholesterol embolization | Tranexamic acid, avoid combination Internal bleeding, thromboembolic events, arrhythmias |
| Contraindications | Active internal bleeding Ischemic stroke within 3 months except when within 4.5 hours Severe uncontrolled hypertension | Active internal bleeding Severe uncontrolled hypertension Recent intracranial/intraspinal surgery Ischemic stroke within 3 months |
| Compatibility | May be diluted in equal volume with: 0.9% sodium chloride D5W | • Incompatible with dextrose |
Overview of Evidence
| Author, year | Design/ sample size | Intervention & Comparison | Outcome |
| Guillermin 2016a | Meta-analysis of RCT (n=18,208) | • Tenecteplase 30-50mg vs alteplase 80-100mg | Bleeding 4.8% in tenecteplase vs 5.8% alteplase (p=0.0002) No difference in mortality at 30 days |
| Llevadot 2001 | Retrospective review (38 studies) | Reteplase Anoteplase Tenecteplase | Tenecteplase and reteplase associated with accelerated infusion and more convenient by bolus administration Administration of a less fibrin-specific agent may cause greater systemic coagulopathy with potential for more bleeding |
| Boersma 1996 | Retrospective review (n=50,246) | • Fibrinolytic therapy vs placebo | • Mortality reduction in patients treated within 2 hours compared to later (p=0.001) |
| GUSTO 1993 | Randomized, controlled trial (n=41,021) | Streptokinase + SQ heparin Streptokinase + IV heparin Alteplase + IV heparin Alteplase + Streptokinase + IV heparin | Atleplase administered over 1.5 hours with IV heparin provide survival over standard therapy Thrombolytic therapy administered within 2448 hours of admission |
| Armstrong 2013b | Randomized controlled trial (n=1892) | • PCI vs bolus tenecteplase, clopidogrel, and enoxaparin | Tenecteplase administration prehospital resulted in effective reperfusion when PCI was not completed within 1 hour Fibrinolytic therapy associated with increase risk of intracranial bleeding |
| Cardiac Arrest Data | |||
| Bottiger 2001 | Prospective cohort (n=40) | • Alteplase 50 mg bolus, repeat 50 mg in 30 minutes vs placebo | • Increase in ROSC (68% vs 44%), ICU admission compared to placebo |
| Schreiber 2002 | Retrospective chart review (n=157) | • Alteplase 15mg bolus followed by 50mg infusion over 30 min and 35mg over 60 min | • Thrombolytic therapy achieved better functional neurological recovery more frequently (p=0.03) |
| Lederer 2004 | Retrospective chart review (n=108) | • Alteplase 100 mg (15 mg followed by 85 mg over 90 min) | 81% of patients who received thrombolytic therapy were discharged without neurological deficit 67% of patients were still alive 5-10 years after the event |
| Li 2006 | Meta-analysis | • Alteplase 15mg bolus followed by 50mg infusion over 30 min and 35mg over 60 min | Thrombolytic therapy improved the rate of ROSC (p < 0.01) 48% of patients had acute coronary artery obstruction |
| Bottiger 2008 | Randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (n=1050) | Tenecteplase 30mg if < 60kg Tenecteplase 35mg if 60-69kg • Tenecteplase 40mg if 70-79kg Tenecteplase 45mg if 80-89kg Tenecteplase 50mg if > 90kg Placebo | No difference in tenecteplase and placebo in 30-day survival, ROSC, survival, or neurologic outcomes Increased intracranial hemorrhages in tenecteplase patients |
| RuizBailen 2001 | Retrospective cohort (n=303) | Streptokinase Alteplase accelerated regimen Alteplase double bolus | Systemic thrombolysis patients had a lower mortality, less mechanical ventilation, fewer CPR attempts (p < 0.0001) No fatal hemorrhagic complications |
Conclusions
- Evidence supports PCI is the first line option for management of patients requiring reperfusion during cardiac arrest when a STEMI is suspected
- Available evidence suggests tenecteplase and alteplase are appropriate fibrinolytic therapies when PCI is unavailable
- Tenecteplase is an alternative fibrinolytic therapy and has been evaluated safe and efficacious as a bolus dose of 30-50mg
- When alteplase is the only fibrinolytic therapy available, there is data to support bolus therapy +/- a weight based infusion during cardiac arrest
- Thrombolytic agents administered during CPR can improve the rate of survival but are associated with a risk of severe bleeding
References
- Lexicomp [Electronic version]. Macedonia, OH: Truven Wolters Kluwer Health. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://online.lexi.com/lco/action/login.
- Guillermin A, Yan D, Perrier A, Marti C. Safety and efficacy of tenecteplase versus alteplase in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Arch Med Sci 2016; 12, 6: 1181–1187.
- Llevadot J, Giugliano R, Antman E. Bolus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2001; 286(4): 442-449.
- Boersma E, Maas A, Deckers J, Simoons M. Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet. 1996; 348: 771-775.
- GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. NEJM. 1993; 329(10): 673-682.
- Armstrong P, Gershlick A, Goldstein P, Wilcox R, Danays T, Lambert Y, Sulimov V, Ortiz F, Ostojic M, Welsh R, Carvalho A, Nanas J, Arntz H, Halvorsen S, Huger K, Grajek S, Fresco C, Bluhmki E, Regelin A, Vandenberghe K, Bogaerts K, de Werf F. Fibrinolysis or primary PCI in STSegment elevation myocardial infarction. NEJM. 2013; 268(15):1379-1387.
- Wilcox R. Randomized, double-blind comparison of reteplase double-bolus administration with streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction (INJECT): trial to investigate equivalence. Lancet. 1995; 346(8971):329-336.
- Van de Werf F, Cannon CP, Luyten A, Houbracken K, McCabe CH, Berioli S, Bluhmki E, Sarelin H, Wang-Clow F, Fox NL, Braunwald E. Safety assessment of single-bolus administration of TNK tissue-plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction: the ASSENT-1 trial. The ASSENT-1 Investigators. Am Heart J. 1999 May;137(5):786-91. doi: 10.1016/s0002-8703(99)70400-x. PMID: 10220625.
- Lederer W, Lichtenberger C, Pechlaner C, et al. Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 108 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2001;50(1):71—76.
- Schreiber W, Gabriel D, Sterz F, et al. Thrombolytic therapy after cardiac arrest and its effect on neurological outcome. Resuscitation. 2002;52(1):63—69.
- Lederer W, Lichtenberger C, Pechlaner C, et al. Longterm survival and neurological outcome of patients who received recombinant tissue plasminogen activator during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2004;61(2):123—129.
- Li X, Fu QL, Jing XL, et al. A meta-analysis of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with and without the administration of thrombolytic agents. Resuscitation. 2006;70(1):31—36.
- Bottiger BW, Arntz HR, Chamberlain DA, et al. Thrombolysis during resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. NEJM. 2008;359(25):2651—2662.
- Kurkciyan I, Meron G, Sterz F, et al. Major bleeding complications after cardiopulmonary resuscitation: impact of thrombolytic treatment. J Intern Med. 2003;253(2):128-135.
- Ruiz-Bailén M, Aguayo de, Serrano-Córcoles M, Diáz-Castellanos M, Ramos-Cuadra J, Reina-Toral A. Efficacy of thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27(6): 1050-1057.
- Richling N, Herkner H, Holzer M, Riedmueller E, Sterz F, Schreiber W. Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous intervention after ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest due to acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and its effect on outcome. Am J Emerg Med. 2007 Jun;25(5):545-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.10.014. PMID: 17543659.
- Böttiger B, Bode C, Kern S, et al. Efficacy and safety of thrombolytic therapy after initially unsuccessful cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a prospective clinical trial. Lancet. 2001;357(9268):1583-1585.
Procainamide for Wide Complex Tachycardia
Digoxin Poisoning Management
Push Dose Vasopressors
Patient Case
- The team gets a call that there is a 75 year old male that triggered a sepsis alert in route with EMS and is currently desaturating on 15 L of oxygen with decision made to intubate this patient
- Prior to intubation, the patient hasn’t responded to a NS bolus infusion these are the patient’s vitals:
- Knowing that pre-intubation hypotension has been associated with peri-intubation cardiac arrest, which agent do you order? If it is not commercially available, how do you make it?
Pharmacology
| Phenylephrine (PE) | Epinephrine (EPI) | |
| Properties | A1 ++++ ↑ BP B1 ± ↔HR B2 ± | A1 +++ ↑ BP B1 +++++ ↑ HR B2 +++++ |
| Dose | 100-200 mcg PRN Q 1-5 minute | 10- 20 mcg PRN Q 1-5 minute |
| Formulation | Premixed Syringe- 1000 mcg/10 ml | Not commercially available |
| PK/PD | Onset: 1 minute Duration: ~10-20 minutes | Onset: 1 minute Duration: ~5-10 minutes |
| Adverse Effects | Reflex bradycardia Hypertension | Tachycardia Hypertension |
| Precautions | Bradycardia, heart block, heart failure, angina, acute MI | Tachycardia |
| Compatibility | Compatible with NS, LR, D5 | Compatible with NS, LR, D5 |
| Location in GHS | CPR, Trauma, Zone 2+3 Pyxis | 1 mg/ml: CPR, Trauma, Zone 2+3 Pyxis |
| Comments | Administer through a large bore peripheral IV; Low extravasation risk | Administer through a large bore peripheral IV; Low extravasation risk |
| Making Epinephrine and Phenylephrine the “EASY WAY” Supplies: 10 ml of NS, Insulin syringe, epinephrine or phenylephrine vial, tape, pen Instructions: |
| Making Epinephrine and Phenylephrine the Alternative Way Epinephrine Draw up 9 mL of normal saline into a 10 mL syringe (DO NOT use 10ml IV line “flush” syringes) Into this syringe, draw up 1 mL of EPINEPHphrine 0.1 mg/mL (1 mg/10ml) from a cardiac syringe |
Overview of Evidence
| Author, year | Design/ sample size | Intervention & Comparison | Outcome |
| Rotando, 2019 | Observational ED/ICU N=146 | PE 100 mcg/ mL or Ephedrine 50 mg/10 mL | Most common indication = peri-intubation hypotension Both agents associated with: ↑ SBP by 26 mmHg ↑ SBP by 26 mmHg ↓ HR by 6 beats per minute |
| Schwartz, 2016 | Observational ED N=76 | PE 100 mcg/ mL (pre-filled syringe) | 46.5% patients were initiated on vasopressor drip ≤ 30 minutes; mean MAP ↑ from 56.5 to 79.3 mmHg most common dose 100 mcg most common indication = peri-intubation hypotension |
| Panchal, 2015 | Observational ED N=119 | PE 100 mcg/1 mL | PE given during the peri-intubation period: ↑ SBP by 20 mmHg, ↑ DBP by 10 mmHg, HR unchanged |
| Doherty, 2012 | RCT OR N=60 | PE IV push 120 mcg (pre-filled syringe) Vs PE infusion @ 120 mcg/min | The infusion used more drug ( 1740 v 964 mcg) Push dose pressor had favorable impact of MAP compared to infusion |
References
- Micromedex [Electronic version].Greenwood Village, CO: Truven Health Analytics. Retrieved March 18, 2019, from http://www.micromedexsolutions.com/
- Scott Weingart. EMCrit Podcast 205 – Push-Dose Pressors Update. EMCrit Blog. Published on August 7, 2017. Accessed on March 19th 2019. Available at [https://emcrit.org/emcrit/push-dose-pressor-update/ ]
- Holden D. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):83-92.
- Panchal AR. J Emerg Med. 2015 Oct;49(4):488-94.
- Rotando A. Am J Emerg Med. 2019 Mar;37(3):494-498.
- Doherty A. Anesth Analg. 2012 Dec;115(6):1343-50.
- Schwartz MB. Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Dec;34(12):2419-2422