ReviewCureus2026
Management Strategies for Hypertensive Crises: A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Approaches.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypertensive crises, encompassing emergencies and urgencies, are acute, severe blood pressure elevations associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite available guidelines, variability in clinical practice persists. This systematic review aims to synthesise evidence on pharmacological management strategies for hypertensive crises, focusing on efficacy, safety, and setting-specific considerations. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was conducted for studies published between January 2020 and December 2025. Studies evaluating pharmacological interventions in adult patients with hypertensive crises were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A narrative synthesis was performed due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity. The search yielded 629 records, of which six studies met the inclusion criteria, with two randomised controlled trials, two retrospective cohort studies, and two cross-sectional studies conducted across India, Taiwan, the United States, Ethiopia, the Netherlands, and Europe. All studies demonstrated low risk of bias, with NOS scores ranging from 7 to 9 stars. Continuous intravenous infusion achieved the fastest blood pressure reduction, while intravenous bolus alone was associated with the shortest intensive care unit (ICU) stay. One study found no significant difference in time to blood pressure control between treated and untreated emergency department patients, but observed reduced three-year and five-year mortality in treated patients. Overall mortality among ICU patients was 8%, with higher rates in those presenting with acute coronary syndrome. Both phenoxybenzamine and doxazosin were effective in preventing intraoperative haemodynamic instability during pheochromocytoma resection, with zero 30-day mortality. Acute kidney injury occurred in 20-30% of patients with hypertensive emergencies complicated by heart failure. Guidelines recommended against routine early intensive blood pressure lowering in acute ischaemic stroke due to the absence of proven mortality benefit and potential harm. Factors associated with better outcomes included polypharmacy approaches, formal end-organ damage evaluation, and absence of target organ damage. Multiple pharmacological strategies are effective in hypertensive crises, with choice guided by clinical context and target organ damage. Continuous infusion offers the fastest reduction, and bolus strategies reduce ICU utilisation. Target organ damage, especially acute coronary syndrome, predicts worse outcomes. Emergency department intervention confers long-term mortality benefits. Standardised definitions and larger trials are needed, particularly in resource-limited settings.
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.