Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27873502›Full record

Trial reportYonsei medical journal2017

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Urapidil for Older Hypertensive Patients with Acute Heart Failure: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Wei Yang, Yu Jie Zhou, Yan Fu, Jian Qin, Shu Qin, Xiao Min Chen, Jin Cheng Guo, De Zhao Wang, Hong Zhan, Jing Li and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Yonsei medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Clinical Review of Hypertensive Acute Heart Failure.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Wei YangDepartment of Geriatrics, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yu Jie ZhouDepartment of Cardiology, An Zhen Hospital affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yan FuFu Yan Emergency Department, Tong Ren Hospital affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jian QinDepartment of Cardiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shu QinDepartment of Cardiology, First Hospital affiliated with Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Xiao Min ChenDepartment of Cardiology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China.
Jin Cheng GuoDepartment of Cardiology, Luhe Hospital of Beijing Tongzhou District, Beijing, China.
De Zhao WangDepartment of Cardiology, Mentougou District Hospital of Beijing City, Beijing, China.
Hong ZhanEmergency Department, First Hospital affiliated with Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Jing LiDepartment of Cardiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jing Yu HeEmergency Department, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Qi HuaDepartment of Cardiology, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. huaqi5371@medmail.com.cn.
Capital Medical University · CNBeijing YouAn Hospital · CNBeijing Luhe Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University · CNBeijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CNNingbo First Hospital · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUrapidil is putatively effective for patients with hypertension and acute heart failure, although randomized controlled trials thereon are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of intravenous urapidil relative to that of nitroglycerin in older patients with hypertension and heart failure in a randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients (>60 y) with hypertension and heart failure were randomly assigned to receive intravenous urapidil (n=89) or nitroglycerin (n=91) for 7 days. Hemodynamic parameters, cardiac function, and safety outcomes were compared.

resultsPatients in the urapidil group had significantly lower mean systolic blood pressure (110.1±6.5 mm Hg) than those given nitroglycerin (126.4±8.1 mm Hg, p=0.022), without changes in heart rate. Urapidil was associated with improved cardiac function as reflected by lower N terminal-pro B type natriuretic peptide after 7 days (3311.4±546.1 ng/mL vs. 4879.1±325.7 ng/mL, p=0.027) and improved left ventricular ejection fraction (62.2±3.4% vs. 51.0±2.4%, p=0.032). Patients given urapidil had fewer associated adverse events, specifically headache (p=0.025) and tachycardia (p=0.004). The one-month rehospitalization and all-cause mortality rates were similar.

conclusionIntravenous administration of urapidil, compared with nitroglycerin, was associated with better control of blood pressure and preserved cardiac function, as well as fewer adverse events, for elderly patients with hypertension and acute heart failure.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAgedAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureCause of DeathFemaleHeart FailureHeart RateHemodynamicsHumansHypertensionInjections, IntravenousMaleMiddle AgedNatriuretic Peptide, BrainNitroglycerinAntihypertensive AgentsNatriuretic Peptide, BrainNitroglycerinPeptide FragmentsPiperazinespro-brain natriuretic peptide (1-76)urapidilacute heart failurehypertensionrandomized controlled trialUrapidil

Identifiers

PMID27873502
PMCPMC5122625
OpenAlexW2555966232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.