Urapidil, compared to nitroglycerin, has better clinical safety in the treatment of hypertensive patients with acute heart failure: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES:The application of urapidil for treating hypertensive patients with acute heart failure in the emergency department remains controversial. Our objective was to organize the relevant articles and assess the clinical indexes between urapidil and nitroglycerin. MATERIALS AND METHODS:PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for randomized studies that compared urapidil treatment with nitroglycerin treatment for hypertensive patients with acute heart failure. The risk ratio, with 95% CI, was calculated by using a corresponding effects model, according to the value of I 2. RESULTS:Seven randomized controlled trials were identified, in order to compare the clinical indexes. On comparing the clinical indexes, the urapidil group was found to be better than the nitroglycerin group in regard to left ventricular ejection fraction, systolic blood pressure, N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, cardiac index, ALT, AST and health complications (P<0.05), but the indexes of creatinine were worse in the urapidil group. Furthermore, the two methods of treatment were comparable in diastolic blood pressure, left ventricular end-systolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic dimension, heart rate, fasting plasma glucose and total cholesterol levels (P>0.05). CONCLUSION:Based on the current evidence, urapidil treatment had better clinical safety features than the traditional pharmaceutical treatment with nitroglycerin. For those indicators with a small amount of data, a greater number of randomized, high-quality controlled trials should be conducted in order to further verify the findings, which could give researchers a more comprehensive evaluation of urapidil treatment.