SynthesisClinical cardiology2026
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Clevidipine Versus Nicardipine in Hypertensive Emergencies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 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.
- Methodological Considerations Regarding the Comparison of Clevidipine and Nicardipine in Hypertensive Emergencies.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHypertensive emergencies require prompt blood pressure reduction to prevent acute target-organ damage. Clevidipine and nicardipine are commonly used intravenous dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, but their comparative efficacy and safety remain uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes associated with clevidipine versus nicardipine.
methodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through July 3, 2026. Comparative studies evaluating intravenous clevidipine and nicardipine in adults requiring acute systolic blood pressure (SBP) control were included. Primary outcomes were time to target SBP and percentage of time within the target SBP range. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, infusion drug volume, hypotension, tachycardia, acute kidney injury, rescue antihypertensive therapy, and in-hospital mortality.
resultsNine studies involving 1378 patients (eight retrospective cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial) were included. No significant differences were observed between clevidipine and nicardipine in time to target SBP, percentage of time within the target SBP range, ICU or hospital length of stay, hypotension, tachycardia, acute kidney injury, rescue antihypertensive therapy, or in-hospital mortality. Subgroup analyses demonstrated significantly faster target SBP attainment with clevidipine in stroke/neurocritical care and general hypertensive crisis populations. Clevidipine was associated with significantly lower infusion drug volume.
conclusionsClevidipine and nicardipine demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for hypertensive emergencies. Although clevidipine achieved lower infusion volumes and faster target SBP attainment in subgroup analyses, no consistent overall clinical superiority was observed. Larger randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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.