The effect of preexisting hypertension on early neurologic results of patients with an acute spinal cord injury

18Citations
Citations of this article
75Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Study design:Retrospective case-control.Objectives:To characterize changes in American Spinal Injury Association Motor Score (AMS) in patients treated with relative hypertension (HTN) (mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 85 mm Hg for 5 days) with and without preexisting HTN.Setting:A regional spinal cord injury (SCI) center in Pennsylvania, United States.Methods:All patients with an acute SCI who were treated with induced HTN (MAP goal above 85) in the intensive care unit (ICU) for at least 5 days were identified. Patients were stratified based on the presence of preexisting HTN, and the change in the AMS between admission and day 5 was determined. Predictors of outcome were identified using correlation analysis and multiple linear regression.Results:Ninety-two patients met inclusion criteria of which 22 had a previous history of HTN. HTN was a predictor of poor early outcome. Patients with HTN had an average decline in their AMS of 7.6, compared with an average decrease of only 0.6 in the AMS of patients without HTN (P=0.04). HTN had no effect (P>0.05) on other in-hospital variables including length of stay, length of stay in the ICU, complications or mortality. Additionally, multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that diabetes, coronary artery disease and pulmonary disease had no effect on the change in AMS.Conclusion:Chronic HTN is an independent risk factor for poor early neurologic recovery in patients treated with relative HTN for an acute SCI. This is independent of age and other comorbidities.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kepler, C. K., Schroeder, G. D., Martin, N. D., Vaccaro, A. R., Cohen, M., & Weinstein, M. S. (2015). The effect of preexisting hypertension on early neurologic results of patients with an acute spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord, 53(10), 763–766. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.76

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free