Clevidipine

Patients often receive propofol for sedation and clevidipine for hypertension in the intensive care unit. Both agents are formulated as a lipid emulsion, which may increase the risk of hypertriglyceridemia and acute pancreatitis with their coadministration. We aimed to determine the incidence of hypertriglyceridemia and acute pancreatitis with concurrent administration of propofol and clevidipine and identify patient risk factors for hypertriglyceridemia.

This was a multicenter retrospective study of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) receiving concurrent propofol and clevidipine infusions for ≥ 6 h. The primary outcome was the frequency of triglyceride levels greater than 400 mg/dL and acute pancreatitis. The secondary outcome was risk factors associated with hypertriglyceridemia during concurrent propofol and clevidipine infusions until both infusions had been discontinued. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess risk factors of hypertriglyceridemia in patients receiving concurrent propofol and clevidipine infusions.

Across 1,226 patients, the median duration of infusion overlap was 12.4 [interquartile range (IQR) 8.3, 22.7] hours. The mean age of the cohort was 59.6 [standard deviation (SD) 14.9] years, and 59.4% were male. Assuming those without a triglyceride level drawn did not have hypertriglyceridemia, hypertriglyceridemia after initiation of propofol and clevidipine infusion was found in 7.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.3% to 9.3%] of the entire cohort. Twenty‐six patients (2.1%) had a diagnosis of pancreatitis after initiation of lipid infusions, of which 12 cases were possibly infusion‐related, and one case was likely infusion‐related. After calculating the Naranjo Scale, all 13 cases of pancreatitis were possibly related to propofol or clevidipine infusions. Based on a multivariable logistic regression of those with a triglyceride level available, risk factors for hypertriglyceridemia included pancreatitis within the past 5 years [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.77, 95% CI, 1.23 to 6.23] and statin use (aOR 1.94, 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.34).

In our cohort of patients receiving concurrent propofol and clevidipine, the frequency of hypertriglyceridemia and acute pancreatitis was low. Further comparative studies are warranted to assess the risk of pancreatitis with the addition of clevidipine to propofol.

Hypertensive 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.

PubMed, 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.

Nine 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.

Clevidipine 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.