{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028109627547434995, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008432888264230498, 'mean_word_length': 5.414414414414415, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Hemodynamic Effects of Urapidil and Labetalol After Electroconvulsive Therapy

Urapidil, a postsynaptic &agr; 1 -adrenergic antagonist, has been reported to improve intraoperative hemodynamic stability, although it has never been used to prevent the hemodynamic response of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). This study was designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of urapidil, as an alternative to labetalol, in preventing the hemodynamic response of ECT. Twenty-seven patients undergoing a series of six consecutive ECT treatments were studied. Each patient received all three pretreatments twice: no drug, labetalol 0.2 mg/kg, or urapidil 25 mg. Systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure and heart rate (HR) were recorded during the awake state, after anesthesia induction, and 1, 2, 5, 10 and 30 minutes after electroencephalographic (EEG) seizure ended. The duration of the EEG convulsion was also recorded. After induction, the HR increased for no drug and urapidil pretreatments, whereas it decreased when labetalol was given. Labetalol and urapidil attenuated the peak increase of blood pressure and returned it to earlier baseline values. There were no differences in the duration of EEG convulsion between the three pretreatments. Urapidil seems to be a good alternative to labetalol for attenuating the hypertensive response to ECT in cases where there is a contraindication to β-antagonists.