ArticleJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2026
Efficacy and safety of Clevidipine for blood pressure control after carotid endarterectomy: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStrict postoperative blood pressure (BP) control within a narrow range is crucial after Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) to minimize risks like stroke and hyperperfusion syndrome. Our institution targets a systolic BP (sBP) of 130-145 mmHg post-CEA. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of clevidipine versus standard intravenous antihypertensive treatment (labetalol ± urapidil) in maintaining this target range. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center, prospective cohort study included consecutive patients (> 18 years) undergoing CEA at Hospital Universitari de Girona Dr J Trueta, Girona, Spain, between August 2018 and October 2021. Patients received either clevidipine or non-clevidipine treatment (labetalol ± urapidil) based on physician preference. The primary outcome was the Area Under the Curve for sBP outside the target range (AUC-sBP), normalized per hour (mmHg x min/h), during the first six postoperative hours. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests and adjusted linear regression.
resultsData from 97 patients (44 clevidipine, 53 non-clevidipine [38 labetalol only, 15 labetalol + urapidil]) were analyzed. The clevidipine group had higher baseline sBP (144 ± 15 vs 140 ± 7 mmHg, SMD -0.34) and more comorbidities. Clevidipine use was associated with a significantly lower AUC-sBP compared to the non-clevidipine group (median [IQR]: 120 [92-150] vs 240 [240-300] mmHg x min/h, p < 0.00001). This association remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, and preoperative sBP (coef. -220 mmHg x min/h [95% CI -293 to -146], p = 0.0001). Mean cumulative clevidipine dose was 58 ± 86 mg over 14 ± 10 h. No significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes or pre-specified adverse events between groups.
conclusionIn this cohort, clevidipine treatment was associated with significantly better adherence to the target sBP range during the first six hours post-CEA compared to standard therapy with labetalol ± urapidil, without an observed increase in adverse effects.
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.