Observational studyMedicine2020
Clevidipine use after first-line treatment failure for perioperative hypertension in neurosurgical patients: A single-center experience.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Clevidipine Versus Nicardipine in Hypertensive Emergencies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Clevidipine for the management of hypertension in the perioperative cardiac and noncardiac surgical settings: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The safety and efficacy of clevidipine for blood pressure management in neurocritical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Calcium Channel Blockers in Critical Care Medicine: Current Clinical Applications and Future Investigational Perspectives.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perioperative hypertension is a common occurrence in the neurosurgical population, where 60% to 90% of the patients require treatment for blood pressure (BP) control. Nicardipine and clevidipine have been commonly used in neurocritical settings. This retrospective, observational study assessed the effectivity of the administration of clevidipine after nicardipine treatment failure in neurosurgical patients.We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of adult patients who were admitted to our neurosurgical department and received clevidipine after nicardipine treatment failure for the control of BP. The primary effectivity outcome was the comparison of the percentage of time spent at targeted SBP goals during nicardipine and clevidipine administration, respectively.A total of 12 adult patients treated with clevidipine after nicardipine treatment failure and were included for data analysis. The median number of events that required dose-titration was 20.5 vs 17 during the administration of nicardipine and clevidipine, respectively (P = .534). The median percentage of time spent at targeted SBP goal was 76.2% during the administration of nicardipine and 93.4% during the administration of clevidipine (P = .123).Our study suggests that clevidipine could be an alternative effective drug with an acceptable benefit/risk ratio in the neurosurgical population that fails to achieve BP control with nicardipine treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.