RESUMEN
Resumen ANTECEDENTES: el delirio es un síndrome clínico transitorio y reversible, ocurre frecuentemente en el marco de un proceso de enfermedad aguda, se caracteriza por la alteración de la conciencia que se acompaña de un cambio en las funciones cognoscitivas, sobreviene a lo largo de un breve periodo, habitualmente horas o días, y tiende a fluctuar a lo largo del día. El delirio constituye un problema de salud pública importante, se considera predictor independiente de resultados clínicos negativos con incremento de la mortalidad, la estancia hospitalaria, el costo de la atención y el deterioro cognitivo a largo plazo. La evidencia disponible no apoya la administración de medicamentos para prevenir el delirio en el paciente con enfermedad aguda. OBJETIVO: comprobar la seguridad y eficacia de haloperidol para el tratamiento y profilaxis del delirio. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: ensayo clínico controlado, prospectivo, transversal, comparativo, en el que se estudiaron pacientes hospitalizados en el servicio de Medicina Interna del Hospital General Xoco de la Secretaría de Salud de la Ciudad de México, se calculó la escala PREDELIRIC al ingreso de los pacientes; se incluyeron en el estudio los pacientes con riesgo alto de delirio (PREDELIRIC >50%). Los pacientes se distribuyeron al azar en dos grupos, en el grupo 1 se aplicaron medidas no farmacológicas de prevención de delirio más la administración de haloperidol profiláctico y el grupo 2 recibió medidas no farmacológicas de prevención de delirio más placebo. RESULTADOS: se incluyeron 84 pacientes, distribuidos en dos grupos, cada uno con 42 pacientes, de los que 33 (40%) eran hombres. El 42% padeció delirio, el tipo mixto fue el más común. La profilaxis con haloperidol no demostró disminuir la incidencia de delirio (54 vs 46%, p=0.51) en comparación con el grupo control. El haloperidol profiláctico no ofreció diferencias significativas comparado con placebo en retrasar el inicio del delirio (media de 6.3 vs 6.8 días, p=0.98), en los días de estancia hospitalaria (mediana 9.5 vs 12 días, p=0.56) o en la duración del delirio (media 3 vs 3.5 días, p=0.32); tampoco tuvo efecto en la mortalidad (20 vs 10%, p=0.21). No se informaron efectos secundarios con la administración de haloperidol. CONCLUSIONES: la administración de haloperidol para la prevención del delirio en pacientes con riesgo alto de padecerlo no demostró diferencia significativa en comparación con el placebo en disminuir la incidencia de delirio, en retrasar el inicio de los síntomas, en la reducción de su duración, en reducir los días de estancia hospitalaria ni en la mortalidad. De acuerdo con nuestros resultados, por el momento no es posible recomendar la administracion de haloperidol en la profilaxis de delirio en pacientes con riesgo alto de padecerlo.
Abstract BACKGROUND: Delirium is a clinical transitory and reversible syndrome, occurs frequently in a setting of an acute disease process, it is characterized by the disorder of the consciousness accompanied by a change in the cognitive functions, it occurs throughout a brief period, usually hours or days and tends to vary during the day. Delirium is an important public health problem and it is considered independent predictor of negative clinical results with increased mortality, hospital stay, attention cost and cognitive damage to long-term. The available evidence does not support the administration of drugs to prevent delirium in patients with acute disease. OBJECTIVE: To prove the safety and efficacy of haloperidol for the treatment and prophylaxis of delirium. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A clinical, controlled, prospective, cross-sectional, comparative study was done, in which patients hospitalized at Internal Medicine service of General Hospital Xoco, Mexico City, were included. Scale PREDELIRIC was calculated at the entering of patients, including in the study those with high risk of delirium (PRE-DELIRIC >50%). Patients were randomly distributed into two groups, in the group 1 non pharmacological measures of delirium prevention were applied plus the administration of prophylactic haloperidol and group 2 was given non pharmacological measures of delirium prevention plus placebo. RESULTS: There were included 84 patients, distributed into two groups, each one with 42 patients, from which 33 (40%) were male; 42% suffer delirium, mix type was the most common. Prophylaxis with haloperidol did not show to reduce the incidence of delirium (54% vs 46%, p=0.51) compared with control group. Prophylactic haloperidol did not show significant differences compared to placebo in delaying the beginning of delirium (mean of 6.3 days vs 6.8 days, p=0.98), in days of hospital stay (mean 9.5 vs 12 days, p=0.56), or in the lasting of delirium (mean 3 vs 3.5 days, p=0.32). Prophylaxis with haloperidol did not show either effect on mortality (20% vs 10%, p=0.21). There were not secondary effects with haloperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol administration to prevent delirium in patients with high risk of having it did not show significant difference compared to placebo in reducing delirium incidence, delaying the starting of symptoms, in reducing their lasting, in reducing the hospital stay nor in reducing mortality. According to our results, by now it is not possible to recommend the administration of haloperidol in the prophylaxis of delirium in patients with high risk of having it.
RESUMEN
Resumen ANTECEDENTES: la prehipertensión es una condición que aumenta el riesgo de padecer hipertensión arterial. Las concentraciones séricas elevadas de ácido úrico se asocian con hipertensión arterial y dificultan su control. OBJETIVO: evaluar las concentraciones circulantes de ácido úrico en pacientes prehipertensos en comparación con las de sujetos normotensos e hipertensos. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: estudio clínico transversal en el que de enero a junio de 2016 las concentraciones séricas de ácido úrico se determinaron por método enzimático en pacientes con prehipertensión (de acuerdo con los criterios del JNC VII), así como en sujetos normotensos y sujetos hipertensos. Los métodos estadísticos usados fueron ANOVA y prueba exacta de Fisher. RESULTADOS: se incluyeron 90 pacientes con prehipertensión, 90 sujetos normotensos y 90 sujetos hipertensos. Encontramos que el grupo de prehipertensos tuvo valores significativamente mayores de ácido úrico que los normotensos (6.24±1.5 mg/dL vs 5.4±1.2 mg/dL, p=0.000206), mientras que aunque los valores en hipertensos fueron superiores (6.7±2 mg/dL), no alcanzaron significación estadística con los prehipertensos (p=0.99). Encontramos asociación significativa entre hiperuricemia con prehipertensión (p=0.015 IC 95%; 1.18-3.99). CONCLUSIONES: los pacientes prehipertensos mostraron concentraciones de ácido úrico superiores a las de los normotensos y aunque los valores mencionados fueron menores que en los hipertensos, esto no fue significativo. La hiperuricemia puede contribuir, al menos en parte, a mayor progresión hacia hipertensión arterial observada en los prehipertensos.
Abstract BACKGROUND: Prehypertension increases the risk of hypertension, serum uric acid levels are also associated with increased risk of hypertension. Increased levels of resistin and/or decreased levels of adiponectin are associated with cardiovascular mortality and the development of hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate uric acid serum levels in normotensive, prehypertensive and hypertensive patients. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A clinical, cross-sectional study was made from January to June 2016 in which circulating levels of uric acid were measured (enzymatic method) in normotensive, prehypertensive and hypertensive patients. Statistical analysis was performed with ANOVA and Fisher test. RESULTS: Ninety normotensive, 90 prehypertensive and 90 hypertensive patients were included. Prehypertensive patients have significantly greater levels of uric acid than normotensive subjects (6.24±1.5 mg/dL vs 5.4±1.2 mg/dL, p=0.000206). We also observed that hypertensive patients had increased, although non-significantly, values of uric acid than prehypertensive subjects (6.7±2 mg/dL, p=0.99). We also found a significantly association between hyperuricemia and prehypertension (p=0.015 IC 95%; 1.18-3.99). CONCLUSIONS: Prehypertensive patients had greater levels of uric acid when compared with normotensive subjects, this may explain why prehypertensive patients shown increased risk for hypertension than normotensive patients.
RESUMEN
In this clinical trial, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of isosorbide dinitrate spray administered through the oral mucosa in 20 elderly patients (> 60 years old) with a hypertensive emergency (mean arterial pressure > 140 mmHg and target-organ damage). The patents were given a first dose of 1.25 mg of spray when they were admitted; a second dose was administered 15 min. later if the mean arterial pressure had not decreased by > 15%. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was done on every patient immediately prior and 30 min. after administering the medication. Three patients (15%) had a good response with one dose while 17 patients (85%) required a second dose. Thirty patients had a significant reduction in arterial blood pressure (193 +/- 91,123 +/- 5.4 to 154 + 7.1/92.5 + 6.2 mmHg p < 0.005) as well as of the mean arterial pressure (146.8 +/- B to 113 +/- 5 mmHg 23%, p < 0.005 > in a period of 30 min. No adverse effects, rebound hypertension nor severe hypotension were observed. These figures remained under control for 3 h. Both ECG, were normal. A reduction of 13.5% heart rate was obtained (p < 0.005). Our observations suggest that isosorbide dinitrate aerosol is an effective and safe alternative for the treatment of elderly patients with hypertensive emergencies.
Asunto(s)
Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Dinitrato de Isosorbide/administración & dosificación , Vasodilatadores/administración & dosificación , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Urgencias Médicas , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Nebulizadores y VaporizadoresRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Isosorbide dinitrate in spray form is an effective and safe option for the treatment of hypertensive emergencies. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether isosorbide dinitrate spray is as effective and safe as treatment in tablet form for the management of hypertensive emergencies in the elderly. METHODS: Forty patients with hypertensive emergencies were randomly divided into two groups of 20 patients each. Group A received 1.25 mg isosorbide dinitrate aerosol upon arrival and a second dose 15 min later when mean systemic arterial pressure (MAP) reduction was <15% . Group B patients received a single 5 mg tablet of sublingual isosorbide dinitrate. RESULTS: Blood pressure in Group A patients decreased from 193 +/- 13/123 +/- 6.6 mmHg to 154 +/- 15/92.5 +/- 7.6 mmHg (p < 0.005), the reduction beginning 10 min after drug administration; no adverse effects were found. Two patients in Group B did not respond but for the other patients in this group blood pressure decreased from 197 +/- 10/121 +/- 7 to 154 +/- 11/90 +/- 4 mmHg, (p < 0.005), the reduction beginning 45 min after receiving the medication; 8 patients suffered headache. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that isosorbide dinitrate aerosol is more effective than tablets for the treatment of elderly patients with hypertensive emergencies.
Asunto(s)
Antihipertensivos/administración & dosificación , Urgencias Médicas , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Dinitrato de Isosorbide/administración & dosificación , Vasodilatadores/administración & dosificación , Aerosoles , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Antihipertensivos/efectos adversos , Antihipertensivos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Cefalea/inducido químicamente , Humanos , Dinitrato de Isosorbide/efectos adversos , Dinitrato de Isosorbide/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Seguridad , Comprimidos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Vasodilatadores/efectos adversos , Vasodilatadores/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
In this study the authors assessed the effectiveness and safety of isosorbide dinitrate aerosol administered through the oral mucosa in 30 adult patients who presented with a hypertensive crisis (mean arterial pressure > 130 mm Hg and evidence of target organ damage). The patients were given a first dose of 1.25 mg of aerosol when they were admitted to the hospital; a second dose was administered 15 minutes later if the mean arterial pressure had not decreased by > 15%. An electrocardiogram (ECG) was obtained for every patient immediately prior to and 30 minutes after administration of the medication. Nine patients (30%) had a good response with one dose, whereas 21 patients (70%) required a second dose. All 30 patients had a significant reduction of the arterial blood pressure (187+/-13 / 121+/-6.6 to 153+/-15.3 / 92.3+/-7.6 mm Hg; p<0.005) as well as of the mean arterial pressure (136.6+/-8 to 109.5+/-7 mm Hg; p<0.005) in a period of 30 minutes. No adverse effects, rebound hypertension, or severe hypotension were observed. These figures remained under control for 6 hours. Two of the patients had angina pectoris at admission and their ECG showed subepicardial ischemia, both of which disappeared with the medication. A second ECG appeared normal. A reduction of 14% in heart rate was obtained (95+/-15 to 82+/-14 beats per minute; p<0.005). These observations suggest that isosorbide dinitrate aerosol is an effective and safe alternative for the treatment of patients with hypertensive crises.