Blood Pressure Elevation in a Patient Treated with Salsalate

2002 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 624-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Bryles Phillips ◽  
Jacqueline D Joss ◽  
Paul L Mulhausen
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Blood Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Antiinflammatory Drug ◽  
Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drug ◽  
Prior History ◽  
Antihypertensive Medications ◽  
Blood Pressure Elevation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Diagnosis Of Hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of increased blood pressure associated with the use of salsalate in an elderly patient with no prior history of hypertension. CASE SUMMARY: A 78-year-old white man with no prior history of hypertension initiated salsalate therapy for low-back pain. Over the 15 months prior to the initiation of salsalate, his blood pressure averaged 127 ± 7 mm Hg systolic and 84 ± 6 mm Hg diastolic (mean ± SD). After initiation of salsalate, he experienced significant elevations in blood pressure, which led to a preliminary diagnosis of hypertension. Blood pressure after initiation of salsalate averaged 150 ± 13 mm Hg systolic and 95 ± 5 mm Hg diastolic. No changes in medications or medication doses (with the exception of warfarin) occurred in the 18 months prior to or during salsalate therapy. His weight remained stable. A detailed review of his medical records and history revealed no other causes for these elevations in blood pressure. Salsalate therapy was discontinued and his blood pressure returned to normotensive levels (119 ± 2 mm Hg systolic and 81 ± 2 mm Hg diastolic). DISCUSSION: Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID)–induced elevations in blood pressure have been well documented in patients receiving antihypertensive medications. Due to its relative weak inhibition of cyclooxygenase and lack of published literature in hypertensive patients, salsalate is considered to have little or no effect on blood pressure. Our report documents a possible case of salsalate-induced hypertension in a previously normotensive elderly man. Observational studies suggest that NSAID use may increase the risk of developing hypertension in older patients. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware of the possible effects of NSAIDs on blood pressure. Blood pressure monitoring following the initiation of salsalate may be warranted, particularly in older patients.

scholarly journals Utility of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in potential living kidney donors

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nabeel Aslam ◽  
Sobia H. Memon ◽  
Hani Wadei ◽  
Elizabeth R. Lesser ◽  
Shehzad K. Niazi
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Blood Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Kidney Donation ◽  
Prior History ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Kidney Donors ◽  
History Of ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
New Diagnosis

Abstract Introduction Hypertension (HTN) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease; therefore, it is imperative to risk stratify potential kidney donors during evaluation. Clinic blood pressure (CBP) measurement is inaccurate in assessing presence or absence of HTN. There is paucity of data about utility of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) during kidney donor evaluation. Methods 24-h ABPM is performed on all kidney donors at Mayo Clinic Florida. We conducted retrospective review of 264 consecutive potential kidney donors from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2017. Demographic, comorbid conditions, laboratory results and 24-h ABPM data were collected. Subjects were divided into two groups: Group1: Subjects with no prior history of HTN and new diagnosis of HTN using 24-h ABPM; Group 2: Subjects with no prior history of hypertension and normal BP on 24-h ABPM. Results Baseline demographic included mean age 46.40 years, 39% males, 78.4% Caucasians, and mean BMI was 26.94. Twenty one subjects (8.0%) had prior diagnosis of HTN. Among 243 subjects without prior HTN, 62 (25.5%) were newly diagnosed with HTN using 24-h ABPM. CBP was high only in 27 out of 62 (43.6%) of newly diagnosed HTN subjects. Thirty-five subjects (14.4%) had masked HTN and 14 subjects (5.8%) had white-coat HTN. Newly diagnosed hypertensive subjects were more likely to be males as compared to Group 2 (53.2% vs 34.3% P = 0.008). There was a trend of more non-Caucasians subjects (30.6% vs 19.9% P = 0.08) and more active smokers (17.7% vs 11.6%, P = 0.054) in Group1 as compared to Group 2. Only 17 (27.4%) out of 62 newly diagnosed hypertensive subjects were deemed suitable for kidney donation as compared to 105 (58.0%) out of 181 normotensive subjects (P < 0.001). Conclusion In our cohort, use of ABPM resulted in new diagnosis of HTN in 1 out of 4 potential kidney donors. Newly diagnosed HTN was more common in men, those with non-Caucasian race, and in active smokers. There was a significantly reduced acceptance rate for kidney donation among newly diagnosed HTN subjects. Further studies are needed to determine the value of 24-h ABPM among these high risk groups.

Invasive and Concomitant Noninvasive Intraoperative Blood Pressure Monitoring

2011 ◽  
Vol 115 (5) ◽  
pp. 973-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
David B. Wax ◽  
Hung-Mo Lin ◽  
Andrew B. Leibowitz
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Blood Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Antihypertensive Agents ◽  
Blood Transfusions ◽  
Blood Products ◽  
Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Antihypertensive Medications ◽  
Hypertensive Patients ◽  
Simultaneous Measurements

Background Noninvasive (NIBP) and intraarterial (ABP) blood pressure monitoring are used under different circumstances and may yield different values. The authors endeavored to characterize these differences and hypothesized that there could be differences in interventions associated with the use of ABP alone ([ABP]) versus ABP in combination with NIBP ([ABP+NIBP]). Methods Simultaneous measurements of ABP and NIBP made during noncardiac cases were extracted from electronic anesthesia records; the differences were subjected to regression analysis. Records of blood products, vasopressors, and antihypertensives administered were also extracted, and associations between the use of these therapies and monitoring strategy ([ABP] vs. [ABP+NIBP]) were tested using univariate, multivariate, and propensity score matched analyses. Results Among 24,225 cases, 63% and 37% used [ABP+NIBP] and [ABP], respectively. Systolic NIBP was likely to be higher than ABP when ABP was less than 111 mmHg and lower than ABP otherwise. Among patients with hypotension, transfusion occurred in 27% versus 43% of patients in the [ABP+NIBP] versus [ABP] group, respectively (odds ratio = 0.4; 95% CI 0.35-0.46), and 7% versus 18% of patients in the [ABP+NIBP] versus [ABP] group received vasopressor infusions, respectively (P &lt; 0.01). Among hypertensive patients, 12% versus 44% of those in the [ABP+NIBP] versus [ABP] group received antihypertensive agents, respectively (P &lt; 0.01). Conclusions NIBP was generally higher than ABP during periods of hypotension and lower than ABP during periods of hypertension. The use of NIBP measurements to supplement ABP measurements was associated with decreased use of blood transfusions, vasopressor infusions, and antihypertensive medications compared with the use of ABP alone.

scholarly journals Blood Pressure Screening, Control, and Treatment for Patients With Developmental Disabilities in General Medicine Practices

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 234-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Erickson ◽  
Kayla Kornexl
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Developmental Disabilities ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
General Medicine ◽  
Antihypertensive Medications ◽  
Group Outcomes ◽  
History Of ◽  
Special Patient Population ◽  
Primary Care Practices ◽  
And Control

Background: Little is known about the adequacy of screening for and treatment of hypertension for people with developmental disabilities (DD). Pharmacists may assist in identifying and treating this special patient population. Objective: To characterize and compare the screening, treatment, and control of blood pressure (BP) in patients with DD to patients without DD. Methods: This retrospective study identified adult patients of primary care practices within a large academic health system who had DD (DD group) and a comparator group without DD (GenMed group). Outcomes assessed included percentage of patients screened, mean BP, percentage of patients with controlled BP, and antihypertensive medications prescribed. Results: The DD (n = 183) and GenMed groups (n = 497) were nearly all screened for BP. Mean systolic BP was significantly lower in the DD group (119.9 ± 14.6 mm Hg vs 122.8 ± 15.4 mm Hg GenMed, P = .03), while diastolic BP was no different ( P = .7). Stroke was documented significantly more often in the DD group (5.5% vs 1.4%, P = .005). Of patients with uncontrolled BP, the DD group had significantly higher systolic BP (155.8 ± 14.1 mm Hg vs 147.4 ± 9.5 mm Hg GenMed, P = .02). Hypertension was documented in 32% of DD group versus 38.5% of GenMed group, P = .15. Of this group, 88.1% of the DD group had controlled BP versus 78.0% of the GenMed group, P = .09. Antihypertensive prescribing was not different between the groups. Conclusion: DD group patients had similar outcomes for hypertension therapy compared to patients without DD. Those with uncontrolled BP in the DD group tended to have higher systolic BP. Significantly more DD patients had a history of stroke.

What happened after birth to pregnant women undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for the diagnosis of hypertension?

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 814-817
Author(s):  
Jeruza Mara de Oliveira Lima ◽  
Raquel Uchoa Lobo ◽  
Deyvison Henrique da Silva Rodrigues ◽  
Antônio Brazil Viana Jr ◽  
Ricardo Pereira Silva
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Ambulatory Blood Pressure ◽  
Blood Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Pressure Monitoring ◽  
Diagnosis Of Hypertension
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document