Comparison between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation of eclampsia patients in the intensive care unit

A comparation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of dexmedetomidine rather than midazolam may improve ICU outcomes. We summarized the available recent evidence to further verify this conclusion.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted. Risk ratios (RR) were used for binary categorical variables, and for continuous variables, weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated, the effect sizes are expressed as 95% confidence intervals (CI), and trial sequential analysis was performed.

RESULTS

16 randomized controlled trials were enrolled 2035 patients in the study. Dexmedetomidine as opposed to midazolam achieved a shorter length of stay in ICU (MD = -2.25, 95%CI = -2.94, -1.57, p<0.0001), lower risk of delirium (RR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.50, 0.81, p = 0.0002), and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (MD = -0.83, 95%CI = -1.24, -0.43, p<0.0001). The association between dexmedetomidine and bradycardia was also found to be significant (RR 2.21, 95%CI 1.31, 3.73, p = 0.003). We found no difference in hypotension (RR = 1.44, 95%CI = 0.87, 2.38, P = 0.16), mortality (RR = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.83, 1.25, P = 0.87), neither in terms of adverse effects requiring intervention, hospital length of stay, or sedation effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined with recent evidence, compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium, mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the ICU, as well as reduced patient costs. But dexmedetomidine could not reduce mortality and increased the risk of bradycardia.

Dexmedetomidine vs other sedatives in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.8 h, 95% CI  - 2.89 to  - 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD  - 0.32 days, 95% CI  - 0.42 to  - 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Cardiac Output among Parturient with Severe Preeclampsia after Cesarean Section

This study was to investigate the hemodynamic effect of dexmedetomidine among parturient with severe preeclampsia after cesarean section. Parturient with severe preeclampsia were randomly allocated to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h) or equivalent volumes of 0.9% saline as control after cesarean section, respectively. A total of 36 parturient with severe preeclampsia were enrolled, including 18 in the dexmedetomidine (DEX) group and 18 in the saline group. Compared with the saline group, among those in the DEX group, CO was reduced by 1.30 L/min (95% CI: -2.36 to 0.25; $P=0.019$ ). Additionally, HR (-13.79 bpm, 95% CI: -22.02 to -5.58; $P=0.002$ ), SBP (-16.11 mmHg, 95% CI: -30.56 to -1.66; $P=0.030$ ), DBP (-10.48 mmHg, 95% CI: -18.27 to -2.69; $P=0.002$ ), and MAP (-12.36 mmHg, 95% CI: -22.05 to -2.66; $P=0.014$ ) were reduced in the DEX group compared with the saline group. In contrast, there were no changes observed in SV and ICON between groups. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine reduces cardiac output by inhibiting the acceleration of heart rate without sacrificing myocardial contractility and stroke volume.

Optimal Sedation and Pain Management: A Patient- and Symptom-Oriented Paradigm

In the critically ill patient, optimal pain and sedation management remains the cornerstone of achieving comfort, safety, and to facilitate complex life support interventions. Pain relief, using multimodal analgesia, is an integral component of any orchestrated approach to achieve clinically appropriate goals in critically ill patients. Sedative management, however, remains a significant challenge. Subsequent studies including most recent randomized trials have failed to provide strong evidence in favor of a sedative agent, a mode of sedation or ancillary protocols such as sedative interruption and sedative minimization. In addition, clinical practice guidelines, despite a comprehensive evaluation of relevant literature, have limitations when applied to individual patients. These limitations have been most apparent during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. As such, there is a need for a mindset shift to a practical and achievable sedation strategy, driven by patients' characteristics and individual patient needs, rather than one cocktail for all patients. In this review, we present key principles to achieve patient-and symptom-oriented optimal analgesia and sedation in the critically ill patients. Sedative intensity should be proportionate to care complexity with due consideration to an individual patient's modifiers. The use of multimodal analgesics, sedatives, and antipsychotics agents-that are easily titratable-reduces the overall quantum of sedatives and opioids, and reduces the risk of adverse events while maximizing clinical benefits. In addition, critical considerations regarding the choice of sedative agents should be given to factors such as age, medical versus operative diagnosis, and cardiovascular status. Specific populations such as trauma, neurological injury, and pregnancy should also be taken into account to maximize efficacy and reduce adverse events.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Prophylactic Quetiapine on Delirium Prevention in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of short-term low-dose quetiapine for delirium prevention in critically ill patients. Methods: In this prospective, a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adult patients who were admitted from July 2015 to July 2017 to a medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary teaching hospital affiliated to Seoul National University were included. Quetiapine (12.5 mg or 25 mg oral at night; N = 16) or placebo (N = 21) was administered according to randomization until ICU discharge or the 10th ICU day. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium within the first 10 ICU days. Secondary endpoints included the rate of positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) (the number of positive CAM-ICU counts/the number of total CAM-ICU counts), delirium duration, successful extubation, and overall mortality. Result: The incidence of delirium during the 10 days after ICU admission was 46.7% (7/15) in the quetiapine group and 55.0% (11/20) in the placebo group (p = 0.442). In the quetiapine group, the rate of positive CAM-ICU was significantly lower than in the placebo group (14.4% vs. 37.4%, p = 0.048), delirium duration during the study period was significantly shorter (0.28 day vs. 1.83 days, p = 0.018), and more patients in the quetiapine than in the placebo group were weaned from mechanical ventilation successfully (84.6% vs. 47.1%, p = 0.040). Conclusions: Our study suggests that prophylactic use of low-dose quetiapine could be helpful for preventing delirium in critically ill patients. A further large-scale prospective study is needed.

Dexmedetomidine for Acute Management of Intrathecal Baclofen Withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Intrathecal baclofen (ITB) is a mainstay of treatment for patients with chronic spasticity. Up to 40% of all patients receiving ITB experience overdose or withdrawal symptoms, which in the most severe cases can lead to multisystem organ failure and death. There is currently no well-established treatment for ITB withdrawal. One previous case report details an intubated pediatric patient who underwent baclofen pump removal in which dexmedetomidine was used in combination with other medications to prevent baclofen withdrawal.

CASE REPORT

We report a case of baclofen withdrawal where the decision was made to initiate a dexmedetomidine infusion, with subsequent improvement of the patient's hypertension and tachycardia. At no point during her stay did the patient require intubation for airway protection, and the patient was ultimately discharged to her previous nursing facility on hospital day 9 with no new neurologic deficits. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Emergency physicians should be aware of dexmedetomidine as a promising option for the treatment of ITB withdrawal in the acute setting. Although little evidence is currently present, dexmedetomidine was used successfully in this case, and should be considered as a temporizing treatment for ITB withdrawal. Dexmedetomidine holds promise in the management of ITB withdrawal compared to other previously described treatments, including oral baclofen, cyproheptadine, and dantrolene. In addition, dexmedetomidine has a superior safety profile compared to propofol or large doses of benzodiazepines. Further research will be useful in supporting the use of dexmedetomidine for this purpose.

Recurrent Seizures in 2 Patients with Magnesium Sulfate-Treated Eclampsia at a Secondary Hospital

BACKGROUND Recurrent seizure in patients with magnesium sulfate-treated eclampsia is very rare and requires meticulous management due to poor prognosis. The development of eclamptic convulsions is considered a preventable obstetric situation. Magnesium sulfate has been the drug of choice in such cases. However, some cases are persistent and need more aggressive treatment. CASE REPORT First case: A 20-year-old, nulliparous woman was referred from a private midwifery practice with history of convulsion, 40 weeks of gestational age (GA), and in the active phase of labor. She had been treated with magnesium sulfate and nifedipine beforehand. Her fetus was tachycardic, so an emergency caesarean section was done and placental abruption was found. The day after the surgery, the patient had recurrent seizures despite receiving a maintenance dose of magnesium sulfate. The patient then received thiopental sodium and remained stable. Second case: A 19-year-old, nulliparous woman came to the hospital with 40 weeks of GA, prolonged premature rupture of the membrane (PROM), preeclampsia, and cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD). An emergency caesarean section was performed. Eighteen hours after surgery, the patient had convulsions despite receiving magnesium sulfate maintenance therapy. We repeated the loading dose of 2 g magnesium sulfate, but the seizures persisted. Hence, midazolam was given and the seizures remained controlled. Both babies were delivered without any significant complications. CONCLUSIONS We report 2 cases of GIP0-0 women with 40 weeks GA who had magnesium sulfate-resistant eclampsia and needed additional anticonvulsant drugs. These cases show the importance of comprehensive management and the need for alternative drugs in eclampsia.

Replacement of dexmedetomidine loading with midazolam for sedation in elderly patients with spinal anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative during spinal anesthesia. However, it requires a loading dose, which can result in transient hypertension, hypotension, bradycardia, and/or sinus arrest. In addition, the time required to reach an appropriate depth of sedation may cause anxiety to the patients. Therefore, we examined whether an intravenous bolus of midazolam could replace the loading dose of dexmedetomidine for sedation during surgery in elderly patients who received spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

Patients aged over 60 years who scheduled to undergo total knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized into 2 groups. Patients in dexmedetomidine group (group D) (n = 20) were administered a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1.0 μg/kg over 10 min) intravenously followed by dexmedetomidine maintenance (0.5 μg/kg/h). Patients in group MD (n = 20) were administered an intravenous midazolam (0.05 mg/kg) followed by dexmedetomidine maintenance (0.5 μg/kg/h) intravenously. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MBP), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and patient state index (PSI) were recorded. Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) scores were evaluated at 10 minutes after drug administration and the end of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 40 subjects were enrolled in the present study. At baseline, there was no between-group difference in HR. Ten minutes after drug administration, group D had lower HR than group MD (62.1 ± 9.4 versus 69.6 ± 13.4, P = .047). PSI was significantly lower in group MD at 10 minutes after drug administration (82.8 ± 13.0 versus 72.0 ± 16.0, P = .024); there was no between-group difference at 30 and 60 minutes, and lower values in group D at the end of surgery (70.2 ± 22.6 versus 79.7 ± 10.9, P = .011). The RSS score showed statistically significantly deeper sedation in group MD 10 minutes after drug administration, but no difference at the end of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

An intravenous bolus of midazolam is a viable alternative to dexmedetomidine loading for sedation during surgery in elderly patients who received spinal anesthesia. This is especially effective for patients who are at high risk for bradycardia or who want a faster sedation.

Randomized comparison between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for prevention of emergence agitation after nasal surgeries

BACKGROUND

Emergence agitation (EA) in nasal surgeries is seen in around 22% of patients, which can go to dangerous levels. Dexmedetomidine is effective in prevention of EA in such patients. Midazolam given as premedication fails to prevent EA due to its short half-life. In this study, we compared efficacy of dexmedetomidine and midazolam by intravenous infusion for prevention of EA in adult nasal surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy patients belonging to American society of anesthesiologist Status I and II, between 18 and 60 years of age posted for elective nasal surgeries were randomly divided into two groups. Group D received intravenous dexmedetomidine 0.5 mcg/kg over 15 min followed by 0.1 mcg/kg/h. Group M received intravenous midazolam 0.02 mg/kg over 15 min followed by 0.02 mg/kg/h. EA scores, emergence times, and hemodynamic parameters were monitored and compared between the groups. Statistical analysis was done by independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Chi-square test as applicable.

RESULTS

Incidence of EA was comparable between the groups (P = 0.23). Two patients in midazolam group developed dangerous agitation while none in dexmedetomidine group. Patients in midazolam group (12.4%) were agitated even in postoperative period, which was not seen with dexmedetomidine group. Hypotension and bradycardia were seen more in dexmedetomidine group.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy of midazolam when given as an intravenous infusion is comparable to dexmedetomidine in prevention of EA in nasal surgeries.

Sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care unit: a network meta-analysis

Sedatives are commonly used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU). However, a variety of sedatives are available and their efficacy and safety have been compared in numerous trials with inconsistent results. To resolve uncertainties regarding usefulness of these sedatives, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials comparing sedatives in mechanically ventilated ICU patients were included. Graph-theoretical methods were employed for network meta-analysis. A total of 51 citations comprising 52 RCTs were included in our analysis. Dexmedetomidine showed shorter MV duration than lorazepam (mean difference (MD): 68.7; 95% CI: 18.2-119.3 hours), midazolam (MD: 10.2; 95% CI: 7.7-12.7 hours) and propofol (MD: 3.4; 95% CI: 0.9-5.9 hours). Compared with dexmedetomidine, midazolam was associated with significantly increased risk of delirium (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.17-5.19). Our study shows that dexmedetomidine has potential benefits in reducing duration of MV and lowering the risk of delirium.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.

DATA SOURCES

We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.

METHODS

Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.

Comparative evaluation of midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and propofol as Intensive Care Unit sedatives in postoperative electively ventilated eclamptic patients

Background and Aims:

Eclampsia is a common hypertensive disorder of pregnancy and treatment often includes termination of pregnancy with elective postoperative mechanical ventilation. The present study was aimed to compare midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine for sedation and antihypertensive requirements of such patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) after termination of pregnancy.

Material and Methods:

A total of ninety eclamptic patients administered general anesthesia for the termination of pregnancy through cesarean section and who also required postoperative ventilation were taken up for the study and were randomly allocated into three groups. All patients received MgSO4 (loading dose, 4 g intravenous) following first seizure episode followed by a continuous infusion for next 24 h. Midazolam group (GrM) received 0.05 mg/kg loading dose of midazolam, followed by infusion of 0.05–0.3 mg/kg/h, propofol group (GrP) received 1 mg/kg loading dose of propofol followed by infusion of 2–8 mg/kg/h, and dexmedetomidine group (GrD) received dexmedetomidine loading dose at 1 mcg/kg followed by infusion of 0.2–1.2 mcg/kg/h. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for hemodynamic stability, requirement of antihypertensive and analgesics, duration of sedation and stop sedation-discharge, and total time spent in the ICU.

Results:

Mean heart rate and mean arterial pressure recorded at different time intervals were lowest in GrD. Nearly 70% (n = 21) patients in the GrM required antihypertensive, 50% (n = 15) in GrP, and 36.6% (n = 11) in the GrD (P < 0.05). Duration of stop sedation-discharge from ICU was least in GrD. A number of patients demanding additional analgesics was also least in GrD.

Conclusion:

Sedation with dexmedetomidine produced better hemodynamic stability in eclamptic patients, and there was a significant reduction in requirement of additional analgesics (P = 0.035) and antihypertensive (P = 0.004). Total duration of ICU stay was also less in this group of patients.

Intensive care and pregnancy: Epidemiology and general principles of management of obstetrics ICU patients during pregnancy

In developed countries, the rate of obstetric ICU admissions (admission during pregnancy or the postpartum period) is between 0.5 and 4 per 1000 deliveries and the overall case-fatality rate is about 2%. The most two common causes of obstetric ICU admissions concerned direct obstetric pathologies: obstetric hemorrhage and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. This review summarized the principles of management of critically ill pregnant patient. Its imply taking care of two patients in the same time. A coordinated multidisciplinary team including intensivists, anesthesiologists, obstetricians, pediatricians and pharmacists is therefore necessary. This team must work effectively together with regular staff aiming to evaluate daily the need to maintain the patient in intensive care unit or to prompt delivery. Keeping mother and baby together and fetal well-being must be balanced with the need of specialized advanced life support for the mother. The maternal physiological changes imply various consequences on management. The uterus aorto-caval compression implies tilting left the parturient. In case of cardiac arrest, uterus displacement and urgent cesarean delivery are needed. The high risk of aspiration and difficult tracheal intubation must be anticipated. Even during acute respiratory distress syndrome, hypoxemia and permissive hypercapnia must be avoided due to their negative impact on the fetus. Careful analysis of the benefit-risk ratio is needed before all drug administration. Streptococcal toxic shock syndrome and perineal fasciitis must be feared and a high level of suspicion of sepsis must be maintained. Finally the potential benefits of an ultrasound-based management are detailed.

Comparison Between Dexmedetomidine and Propofol with Validation of Bispectral Index For Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Sedation plays a pivotal role in the care of the critically ill patient. It is equally important to assess depth of sedation. The present study had been designed to compare dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients. It also intended to verify the clinical validity, reliability and applicability of objective assessment tool bispectral index (BIS) for monitoring sedation and observe for correlation with the commonly used subjective scale, Ramsay sedation score (RSS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective randomized study was carried out in 60 haemodynamically stable patients, aged between 18 to 80 years, requiring sedation and mechanical ventilation. These were divided equally into two groups. Group A received dexmedetomidine loading dose (1μg/kg) over 10 min followed by maintenance infusion of 0.5μg/kg/hr (0.2-0.7 μg/kg/hr). Group B received propofol loading dose (1mg/kg) over 5 min followed by infusion of 2mg/kg/hr (1-3mg/kg/hr). All patients received fentanyl 1 μg/kg prior to the study drugs. Vital parameters and sedation levels (using RSS and BIS) were monitored for the study period of 12 hours with level 4 or 5 of RSS as target for sedation. Ramsay score was compared with the average of BIS values. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS VERSION 17 software.

RESULTS

The study revealed statistically significant lower heart rates during sedation in dexmedetomidine group whereas fall in mean arterial pressure (MAP) following loading dose in propofol group. Patients sedated with dexmedetomidine were easily arousable. Need for rescue drug for achieving the desired RSS as well as incidence of bradycardia was more in dexmedetomidine group than other. Good correlation exists between Ramsay score and BIS values.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine reduces heart rate while propofol transiently affects MAP. However, adequate sedation is achieved with both the drugs. The data obtained from the study validate BIS monitoring for ICU sedation.

Critical care in pregnancy--is it different?

In the first part of this review, the epidemiology of obstetric critical care is discussed. This includes the incidence of severe morbidity in pregnancy, identification of critically ill and potentially critically ill patients, the incidence of obstetric ICU admissions, the type of critical illness by stage of pregnancy, ICU admission diagnoses, the severity of illness in obstetric ICU patients compared to non-obstetric patients, ICU mortality of obstetric patients, the ICU proportion of total maternal mortality, and the causes of death for obstetric patients in ICU. In the second part, the management of obstetric patients who happen to be admitted to a general ICU is discussed. Rather than focusing on the management of particular obstetric conditions, general principles of ICU management will be discussed as applied to obstetric ICU patients. These include drug safety, monitoring the fetus, management of the airway, sedation, muscle relaxation, ventilation, cardiovascular support, thromboprophylaxis, and radiology and ethical issues.

Role of dexmedetomidine in adults in the intensive care unit: an update

PURPOSE

The role of dexmedetomidine for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is reviewed and updated.

SUMMARY

Searches of MEDLINE (July 2006-March 2012) and an extensive manual review of journals were performed. Relevant literature with a focus on data published since our last review in 2007 was evaluated for topic relevance and clinical applicability. Optimal management of pain, agitation, and delirium in ICUs requires a systematic and multimodal approach aimed at providing comfort while maximizing outcomes. Dexmedetomidine is among multiple agents, including opioids, propofol, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics, used to facilitate and increase patients' tolerability of mechanical ventilation. This article reviews the newest evidence available for dexmedetomidine use for sedation and analgesia in medical-surgical ICUs. Adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine were similar among the studies examined herein. The most common adverse effects with dexmedetomidine were bradycardia and hypotension, in some cases severe enough to warrant the use of vasoactive support. Due to the adverse events associated with rapid dosage adjustment and bolus therapy, dexmedetomidine may not be the best agent for treating acute agitation.

CONCLUSION

In medical-surgical ICUs, dexmedetomidine may be a viable non-benzodiazepine option for patients with a need for light sedation. In cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine appears to offer no advantage over propofol as the initial sedative. The role of dexmedetomidine in unique patient populations such as neurosurgical, trauma, and obstetrics is yet to be established.

Dexmedetomidine as a sedative agent in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The effect of dexmedetomidine on length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and time to extubation is still unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pertinent studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (updated February first 2013). Randomized studies (dexmedetomidine versus any comparator) were included if including patients mechanically ventilated in an intensive care unit (ICU). Co-primary endpoints were the length of ICU stay (days) and time to extubation (hours). Secondary endpoint was mortality rate at the longest follow-up available.

RESULTS

The 27 included manuscripts (28 trials) randomized 3,648 patients (1,870 to dexmedetomidine and 1,778 to control). Overall analysis showed that the use of dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in length of ICU stay (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.79 [-1.17 to -0.40] days, p for effect <0.001) and of time to extubation (WMD = -2.74 [-3.80 to -1.65] hours, p for effect <0.001). Mortality was not different between dexmedetomidine and controls (risk ratio = 1.00 [0.84 to 1.21], p for effect = 0.9). High heterogeneity between included studies was found.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies suggests that dexmedetomidine could help to reduce ICU stay and time to extubation, in critically ill patients even if high heterogeneity between studies might confound the interpretation of these results.

Benzodiazepine versus nonbenzodiazepine-based sedation for mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Use of dexmedetomidine or propofol rather than a benzodiazepine sedation strategy may improve ICU outcomes. We reviewed randomized trials comparing a benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine regimen in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients to determine if differences exist between these sedation strategies with respect to ICU length of stay, time on the ventilator, delirium prevalence, and short-term mortality.

METHODS

We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, and the American College of Critical Care Medicine's Pain, Agitation, Delirium Management Guidelines' literature database from 1996 to 2013. Citations were screened for randomized trials that enrolled critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults comparing an IV benzodiazepine-based to a nonbenzodiazepine-based sedative regimen and reported duration of ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, delirium prevalence, and/or short-term mortality. Trial characteristics and results were abstracted in duplicate and independently, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment. We performed random effects model meta-analyses where possible.

RESULTS

We included six trials enrolling 1,235 patients: midazolam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 3), lorazepam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 1), midazolam versus propofol (n = 1), and lorazepam versus propofol (n = 1). Compared to a benzodiazepine sedative strategy, a nonbenzodiazepine sedative strategy was associated with a shorter ICU length of stay (n = 6 studies; difference = 1.62 d; 95% CI, 0.68-2.55; I = 0%; p = 0.0007) and duration of mechanical ventilation (n = 4 studies; difference = 1.9 d; 95% CI, 1.70-2.09; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001) but a similar prevalence of delirium (n = 2; risk ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.61-1.11; I2 = 84%; p = 0.19) and short-term mortality rate (n = 4; risk ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.27; I2 = 30%; p = 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

Current controlled data suggest that use of a dexmedetomidine- or propofol-based sedation regimen rather than a benzodiazepine-based sedation regimen in critically ill adults may reduce ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Larger controlled studies are needed to further define the impact of nonbenzodiazepine sedative regimens on delirium and short-term mortality.

A case-based approach to the practical application of dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults

Dexmedetomidine is a selective α(2) -adrenoceptor agonist that offers unique sedation because patients are readily awakened while administration continues and the drug does not suppress the respiratory center. Limitations of use include higher acquisition cost, inability to produce deep sedation, and bradycardia and hypotension. Using a case-based approach, the purpose of this review was to qualitatively assess the role of dexmedetomidine in the care of the critically ill and in the management of alcohol withdrawal, and to formulate recommendations regarding its clinical application. Sixty-six studies were identified that investigated dexmedetomidine for the provision of sedation. These studies were heterogeneous in design and patient populations; most investigated patients did not require heavy sedation, and few used propofol as the comparator. In general, though, the aggregate results of all studies demonstrate that dexmedetomidine provides comfort, possibly shortens the duration of mechanical ventilation to facilitate extubation, reduces the occurrence of acute brain dysfunction, and facilitates communication, but the drug is associated with hemodynamic instability and requires the supplemental use of traditional sedative and analgesic agents. These outcomes need to be substantiated in additional studies that include assessments of cost-effectiveness. Dexmedetomidine should be considered when patients require mild to moderate levels of sedation of short to intermediate time frames, and they qualify for daily awakenings with traditional sedative therapies. The data for dexmedetomidine in relation to alcohol withdrawal are limited to 12 retrospective reports representing a total of 127 patients. Its role for this indication requires further study, but it may be considered as adjunctive therapy when clinicians are concerned about respiratory suppression associated with escalating doses of γ-aminobutyric acid agonists. Regardless of the indication for dexmedetomidine, the practitioner must closely monitor patient comfort and the occurrence of hemodynamic deviations with the realization that as-needed administration of traditional sedatives and analgesics will be required and some degree of bradycardia and hypotension expected but intervention rarely required.

Delirium in the intensive care unit

Delirium is a serious complication that commonly occurs in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Delirium is frequently unrecognized or missed despite its high incidence and prevalence, and leads to poor clinical outcomes and an increased cost by increasing morbidity, mortality, and hospital and ICU length of stay. Although its pathophysiology is poorly understood, numerous risk factors for delirium have been suggested. To improve clinical outcomes, it is crucial to perform preventive measures against delirium, to detect delirium early using valid and reliable screening tools, and to treat the underlying causes or hazard symptoms of delirium in a timely manner.

Drugs for treatment of very high blood pressure during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Very high blood pressure during pregnancy poses a serious threat to women and their babies. The aim of antihypertensive therapy is to lower blood pressure quickly but safety, to avoid complications. Antihypertensive drugs lower blood pressure but their comparative effectiveness and safety, and impact on other substantive outcomes is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To compare different antihypertensive drugs for very high blood pressure during pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (9 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were randomised trials. Participants were women with severe hypertension during pregnancy. Interventions were comparisons of one antihypertensive drug with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Two review authors extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five trials (3573 women) with 15 comparisons were included. Women allocated calcium channel blockers were less likely to have persistent high blood pressure compared to those allocated hydralazine (six trials, 313 women; 8% versus 22%; risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.66). Ketanserin was associated with more persistent high blood pressure than hydralazine (three trials, 180 women; 27% versus 6%; RR 4.79, 95% CI 1.95 to 11.73), but fewer side-effects (three trials, 120 women; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.53) and a lower risk of HELLP (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and lowered platelets) syndrome (one trial, 44 women; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.81).Labetalol was associated with a lower risk of hypotension compared to diazoxide (one trial 90 women; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.99) and a lower risk of caesarean section (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.02), although both were borderline for statistical significance.Both nimodipine and magnesium sulphate were associated with a high incidence of persistent high blood pressure, but this risk was lower for nimodipine compared to magnesium sulphate (one trial, 1650 women; 47% versus 65%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93). Nimodipine was associated with a lower risk of respiratory difficulties (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.99), fewer side-effects (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.85) and less postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.92) than magnesium sulphate. Stillbirths and neonatal deaths were not reported.There are insufficient data for reliable conclusions about the comparative effects of any other drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Until better evidence is available the choice of antihypertensive should depend on the clinician's experience and familiarity with a particular drug; on what is known about adverse effects; and on women's preferences. Exceptions are nimodipine, magnesium sulphate (although this is indicated for women who require an anticonvulsant for prevention or treatment of eclampsia), diazoxide and ketanserin, which are probably best avoided.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for sedation in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review

Patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) often require sedatives which commonly include midazolam and the more recently developed α2-receptor agonist, dexmedetomidine. It was our aim to compare the sedative and clinical effectiveness of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam in adults admitted to ICU, using an objective appraisal of randomized control trials. Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, Cinhal, the United States National Library of Medicine, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched using keywords: 'dexmedetomidine', 'midazolam', and 'intensive care'. These were limited to human studies and adults (>18 yr old). Six randomized controlled trials were found and were critically appraised using a standardized appraisal method. Two papers described the time spent by each intervention group within a specified target sedation range and both found no statistically significant difference between midazolam and dexmedetomidine (P=0.18 and P=0.15). A third paper found no statistically significant difference in the length of time that patients were sedated within a target zone (P=0.445). Two additional pilot studies did not report P values as they were insufficiently statistically powered. A final paper found that, of the eight occasions measured, patients on dexmedetomidine were more often within the target sedation range than patients on midazolam. The sedative benefits of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam remain inconclusive. While some secondary outcomes showed clinical effectiveness of dexmedetomidine, more research is needed to validate the findings of these studies.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002.

METHODS

The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

[Dexmedetomidine and clonidine: a review of their pharmacodynamy to define their role for sedation in intensive care patients]

Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists ("alpha-2 agonists") present multiple pharmacodynamic effects: rousable sedation, decreased incidence of delirium in the setting of critical care, preservation of respiratory drive, decreased whole body oxygen consumption, decreased systemic and pulmonary arterial impedance, improved left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, preserved vascular reactivity to exogenous catecholamines, preserved vasomotor baroreflex with lowered set point, preserved kidney function, decreased protein catabolism. These pharmacodynamic effects explain the interest for these drugs in the critical care setting. However, their exact role for sedation in critically ill-patients remains open for further studies. Given the few double-blind randomized multicentric trials available, the present non exhaustive analysis of the literature aims at presenting the utilization of alpha-2 agonists as potential first-line sedative agents, in the critical care setting. Suggestions regarding the use of alpha-2 agonists as sedatives are detailed.

Sedation for critically ill or injured adults in the intensive care unit: a shifting paradigm

As most critically ill or injured patients will require some degree of sedation, the goal of this paper was to comprehensively review the literature associated with use of sedative agents in the intensive care unit (ICU). The first and selected latter portions of this article present a narrative overview of the shifting paradigm in ICU sedation practices, indications for uninterrupted or prolonged ICU sedation, and the pharmacology of sedative agents. In the second portion, we conducted a structured, although not entirely systematic, review of the available evidence associated with use of alternative sedative agents in critically ill or injured adults. Data sources for this review were derived by searching OVID MEDLINE and PubMed from their first available date until May 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Advances in the technology of mechanical ventilation have permitted clinicians to limit the use of sedation among the critically ill through daily sedative interruptions or other means. These practices have been reported to result in improved mortality, a decreased length of ICU and hospital stay and a lower risk of drug-associated delirium. However, in some cases, prolonged or uninterrupted sedation may still be indicated, such as when patients develop intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury. The pharmacokinetics of sedative agents have clinical importance and may be altered by critical illness or injury, co-morbid conditions and/or drug-drug interactions. Although use of validated sedation scales to monitor depth of sedation is likely to reduce adverse events, they have no utility for patients receiving neuromuscular receptor blocking agents. Depth of sedation monitoring devices such as the Bispectral Index (BIS©) also have limitations. Among existing RCTs, no sedative agent has been reported to improve the risk of mortality among the critically ill or injured. Moreover, although propofol may be associated with a shorter time to tracheal extubation and recovery from sedation than midazolam, the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia and hypotension is higher with propofol. Despite dexmedetomidine being linked with a lower risk of drug-associated delirium than alternative sedative agents, this drug increases risk of bradycardia and hypotension. Among adults with severe traumatic brain injury, there are insufficient data to suggest that any single sedative agent decreases the risk of subsequent poor neurological outcomes or mortality. The lack of examination of confounders, including the type of healthcare system in which the investigation was conducted, is a major limitation of existing pharmacoeconomic analyses, which likely limits generalizability of their results.

Dexmedetomidine sedation in ICU

Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a highly selective α₂-adrenergic receptor agonist, is the newest agent introduced for sedation in intensive care unit (ICU). The sedation strategy for critically ill patients has stressed light sedation with daily awakening and assessment for neurologic, cognitive, and respiratory functions, since Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guidelines were presented in 2002. The traditional GABAergic agents, including benzodiazepines and propofol, have some limitations for safe sedatives in this setting, due to an unfavorable pharmacokinetic profile and to detrimental adverse effects (such as lorazepam associated propylene glycol intoxication and propofol infusion syndrome). DEX produces it's sedative, analgesic and cardiovascular effects through α₂ receptors on the locus ceruleus (LC). Activities of LC, the tuberomammillary nucleus (TMN) are depressed and activity of the ventrolateral preoptic nucleus (VLPO) is increased during DEX sedation, which is similar in features to normal non-REM (NREM) sleep. At the same time, perifornical orexinergic activity is maintained, which might be associated with attention. This mechanism of action produces a normal sleep-like, cooperative sedation. The characteristic feature of sedation, together with a concomitant opioid sparing effect, may decrease the length of time spent on a ventilator, length of stay in ICU, and prevalence and duration of delirium, as the evidence shown from several comparative studies. In addition, DEX has an excellent safety profile. In conclusion, DEX is considered as a promising agent optimized for sedation in ICU.

Sedation with dexmedetomidine in the intensive care setting

Dexmedetomidine is an α-2 agonist that produces sedation and analgesia without compromising the respiratory drive. Use of dexmedetomidine as a sedative in the critically ill is associated with fewer opioid requirements compared with propofol and a similar time at goal sedation compared with benzodiazepines. Dexmedetomidine may produce negative hemodynamic effects including lower mean heart rates and potentially more bradycardia than other sedatives used in the critically ill. Recent studies have demonstrated that dexmedetomidine is safe at higher dosages, but more studies are needed to determine whether the efficacy of dexmedetomidine is dose dependent. In addition, further research is required to define dexmedetomidine’s role in the care of delirious critically ill patients, as many, but not all, studies have indicated favorable outcomes.

Use of dexmedetomidine as a sedative and analgesic agent in critically ill adult patients: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of using dexmedetomidine as a sedative and analgesic agent on length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, risk of bradycardia, and hypotension in critically ill adult patients.

METHODS

Two researchers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trial register independently for randomized controlled trials comparing dexmedetomidine with a placebo or an alternative sedative agent, without any language restrictions.

RESULTS

A total of 2,419 critically ill patients from 24 trials were subject to meta-analysis. Dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in length of ICU stay [weighted mean difference -0.48 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to -0.78 days, P = 0.002], but not duration of mechanical ventilation, when compared with an alternative sedative agent. There was, however, significant heterogeneity in these two outcomes between the pooled studies. Dexmedetomidine was associated with increased risk of bradycardia requiring interventions in studies that used both a loading dose and maintenance doses >0.7 microg kg(-1) h(-1) [relative risk (RR) 7.30, 95% CI 1.73-30.81, P = 0.007]. Risks of hypotension requiring interventions (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.78-2.6, P = 0.25), delirium (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56-1.11, P = 0.18), self-extubation, myocardial infarction, hyperglycemia, atrial fibrillation, and mortality were not significantly different between dexmedetomidine and traditional sedative and analgesic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant heterogeneity existed between the pooled studies. The limited evidence suggested that dexmedetomidine might reduce length of ICU stay in some critically ill patients, but the risk of bradycardia was significantly higher when both a loading dose and high maintenance doses (>0.7 microg kg(-1) h(-1)) were used.

Drugs for treatment of very high blood pressure during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Very high blood pressure during pregnancy poses a serious threat to women and their babies. Antihypertensive drugs lower blood pressure. Their comparative effects on other substantive outcomes, however, is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To compare different antihypertensive drugs for very high blood pressure during pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (28 February 2006) and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 2).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were randomised trials. Participants were women with severe hypertension during pregnancy. Interventions were comparisons of one antihypertensive drug with another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four trials (2949 women) with 12 comparisons were included. Women allocated calcium channel blockers rather than hydralazine were less likely to have persistent high blood (five trials, 263 women; 6% versus 18%; relative risk (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.70). Ketanserin was associated with more persistent high blood pressure than hydralazine (four trials, 200 women; 27% versus 6%; RR 4.79, 95% CI 1.95 to 11.73), but fewer side-effects (three trials, 120 women; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.53) and a lower risk of HELLP (Haemolysis, Elevated Liver enzymes and Lowered Platelets) syndrome (one trial, 44 women, RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.81). Labetalol was associated with a higher risk of hypotension (one trial 90 women; RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.99) and caesarean section (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.02) than diazoxide. Data were insufficient for reliable conclusions about other outcomes. The risk of persistent high blood pressure was greater for nimodipine compared to magnesium sulphate (two trials 1683 women; 47% versus 65%; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93). Nimodipine was also associated with a higher risk of eclampsia (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.73) and respiratory difficulties (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.99), but fewer side-effects (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86) and less postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.92) than magnesium sulphate. Stillbirths and neonatal deaths were not reported. There are insufficient data for reliable conclusions about the comparative effects of any other drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Until better evidence is available, the choice of antihypertensive should depend on the clinician's experience and familiarity with a particular drug, and on what is known about adverse effects. Exceptions are diazoxide, ketanserin, nimodipine and magnesium sulphate, which are probably best avoided.