Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of safety and efficacy of sublingual captopril with sublingual nifedipine in hypertensive crisis

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
International Journal of Angiology

Abstract

Sublingual nifedipine is commonly used in hypertensive crisis, however, it may result in several adverse effects such as reflex tachycardia, headache, and flushing. Research is continuing to find a new drug that has the same efficiency and fewer side effects. Sublingual captopril, a new preparation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, lowers blood pressure. It is not known whether it is effective in these emergent clinical settings. Therefore we designed a randomized, double-blind study to compare the efficacy and safety of those two drugs in hypertensive crisis. Eighty patients (32 male and 48 female) with hypertensive crisis were included in the study; their mean age was 43.4 ± 7.9 years. Nifedipine 10 mg was given sublingually to 34 and captopril 25 mg to 46 patients randomly. There was no difference between the two drugs with respect to their antihypertensive effect. Heart rate significantly dropped (p<0.01 andp<0.001) in the patients taking captopril, but no changes were observed in the patients taking nifedipine. Twenty-three of 34 patients taking nifedipine encountered adverse effects. Adverse effects were observed in only three patients taking captopril (p<0.001). Sublingual captopril is as effective as and has less side effects than sublingual nifedipine. Because sublingual captopril has fewer side effects, it may be safer than nifedipine in the treatment of hypertensive crisis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fergusson RK (1986) Hypertensive emergencies and urgencies. JAMA 255:1607–1613.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anon (1991) Hypertensive emergencies. Lancet 338:220–221.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gifford RW (1991) Management of hypertensive crises. JAMA 266:829–835.

    Google Scholar 

  4. JD Swales (1995) Managing special situations. In: Manuel of Hypertension, (ed) Cambridge, MA., pp 193–199.

  5. Savi L, Montebelli MR, Mazza A, et al (1990) A new therapy for hypertensive emergencies: Intravenous captopril. Curr Ther Res 47:1073–1081.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Abdelwahab W, Frischman W, Landau A (1995) Management of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies. J Clin Pharmacol 35:747–762.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yurtkuran M, Dilek K, Güllülü M, Yavuz M, Müftüoglu A (1989) Effects of sublingual administration of nifedipine on arterial pressure, plasma renin activity, and glomerular filtration rate in essential hypertension. Angiology 40:159–162.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Karachalios GN, Chrisikos N, Kintziou H, Petrogiannopoulos K, Kehagioglou K (1990) Treatment of hypertensive crisis with sublingual captopril. Cur Ther Res 48:5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Angeli P, Chieza M, Caregaro M, et al (1991) Comparison of sublingual captopril and nifedipine in immediate treatment of hypertensive emergencies. Arch Intern Med 151:678–682.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Longhini C, Ansani L, Musacci G, et al (1990) Sublingual captopril and nifedipine in essential hypertension: Evaluation of the peripheral hemodynamic effects. Curr Ther Res 47:452–458.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wu SG, Lin SL, Shiao WY, Huang WH, Lin FC, Yang YH (1993) Comparison of sublingual captopril, nifedipine and prazosin in hypertensive emergencies during haemodialysis. Nephron 65:284–287.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tschollar W, Belz GG (1985): Sublingual captopril in hypertensive crises. Lancet 11:34–35.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Furaih TA, McElnay JY, Elborn JS, et al (1991) Sublingual captopril-a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 40:393–398.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Michael AW, Joel MN, David HGS (1992) Circulatory and extracirculatory effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Am Heart J 123:1414–1420.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Duckles SP (1981) Angiotensin II potentiates responses of the rabbit basilar artery to adrenergic nerve stimulation. Life Sci 28:635–639.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Khairallah PA (1972) Action of angiotensin on adrenergic nerve endings: Inhibition of norepinephrine uptake. Fed Proc 31:1351–1357.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gemici K, Kazazoglu AR, Yesilbursa D, et al (1998) The effects of sublingual administration of captopril on parameters of exercise test and neurohormonal activation in patients with stable angina pectoris. Int J Angiol 7; 3:238–243.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Gemici, K., Karakoç, Y., Ersoy, A. et al. A comparison of safety and efficacy of sublingual captopril with sublingual nifedipine in hypertensive crisis. International Journal of Angiology 8, 147–149 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01616442

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01616442

Keywords

Navigation