Oral nifedipine or intravenous labetalol for hypertensive emergency in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial

Short-Acting Oral Nifedipine versus Intravenous Labetalol for the Control of Severe Hypertension in the Postpartum Period: A Retrospective Cohort Study

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of oral short-acting (SA) nifedipine with intravenous (IV) labetalol for the treatment of postpartum (PP) severe hypertension.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women who delivered at a tertiary care facility between January and December 2018, had not previously received antihypertensive medication, and required treatment for PP severe hypertension defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 160 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥110 mm Hg. Exposure groups were defined by the receipt of either oral SA nifedipine or IV labetalol. The primary outcome was time (minutes) to BP control (SBP < 160 mm Hg and DBP <110 mm Hg). Secondary outcomes included number of doses required to achieve BP control, crossover to the alternative medication, and recurrence of severe range BP after the achievement of BP control. t-Tests and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used to analyze continuous variables and chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze categorical variables. Multivariable linear regression models were conducted for the primary outcome, controlling for potential confounders in a sequential fashion across three models. A Kaplan-Meier plot was also created.Of the 99 women included, 74 received oral SA nifedipine and 25 received IV labetalol. There was no significant difference in minutes to initial BP control between groups (30.5 minutes [interquartile range, IQR: 20.0-45.0] vs. 25.0 minutes [IQR: 14.0-50.0]; p = 0.82) or in the rate of recurrent severe BP. However, patients who received nifedipine required fewer doses to achieve control (p < 0.01) and did not require crossover (0 vs. 12%, p = 0.01).Both oral SA nifedipine and IV labetalol are effective options for treating PP severe hypertension. An initial choice of nifedipine was associated with a lower requirement for subsequent doses of medication and no need for crossover to an alternative antihypertensive medication. · Nifedipine and labetalol effectively treat PP severe HTN.. · Nifedipine requires fewer doses to treat PP severe HTN.. · Both have low recurrence rates of severe HTN..

Optimal treatment for women with acute hypertension in pregnancy; a randomized trial comparing intravenous labetalol versus nicardipine

OBJECTIVES

Blood pressure control in severe hypertension of pregnancy is crucial for mother and neonate. In absence of evidence, guidelines recommend either intravenous labetalol or nicardipine. We compared the effectiveness and safety of these two drugs in women with severe hypertension in pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed an open label randomized controlled trial. Women with a singleton pregnancy complicated by severe hypertension (systolic ≥ 160 mmHg and/or diastolic ≥ 110 mmHg) requiring intravenous antihypertensive treatment were randomized to intravenous labetalol or intravenous nicardipine. The primary outcome was a composite adverse neonatal outcome defined as severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS), Broncho Pulmonary Dysplasia (BPD), Intraventricular Hemorrhage (IVH) IIB or worse, Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC), or perinatal death defined as fetal death or neonatal death before discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Based on a power analysis, we estimated that 472 women (236 per group) needed to be included to detect a difference of 15% in the primary outcome with 90% power. The study was halted prematurely at 30 inclusions because of slow recruitment and trial fatigue.

RESULTS

Between August 2018 and April 2022, we randomized 30 women of which 16 were allocated to intravenous nicardipine and 14 to intravenous labetalol. The composite adverse neonatal outcome was not significantly different between the two groups (25 % versus 43 % OR 0.28 (95 % CI 0.05-1.43), p = 0.12)). Respiratory distress syndrome occurred more often in the labetalol group than in the nicardipine group (42.9 % versus 12.5 %). Neonatal hypoglycemia occurred more often in the nicardipine group than in the labetalol group (31 % versus 7 %). Time until blood pressure control was faster in women treated with nicardipine than in women treated with labetalol (45 (15-150 min vs. 120 (60-127,5) min).

CONCLUSION

In our prematurely halted small RCT, we were unable to provide evidence for the optimal choice of treatment for severe hypertension to improve neonatal outcome and/or to obtain faster blood pressure control. Differences in Respiratory distress syndrome and neonatal hypoglycemia between the groups might be the result of coincidental finding due to the small groups included in the study. A larger randomized trial would be needed to determine the safest and most efficacious (intravenous) therapy for severe hypertension in pregnancy. This study emphasizes the challenges of conducting a RCT for the optimal treatment for these women.

Oral nifedipine versus intravenous labetalol for hypertensive emergencies during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: The optimal drug management strategy for severe hypertension during pregnancy remains inconclusive. Some randomized controlled trials found that oral nifedipine was more effective than intravenous labetalol in hypertensive emergencies during pregnancy, while others found otherwise. As a result, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of oral nifedipine versus intravenous labetalol for hypertensive emergencies during pregnancy.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared oral nifedipine versus IV labetalol in hypertensive emergencies during pregnancy.Results: 12 RCTs enrolling 1151 participants (573 in the labetalol group and 578 in the nifedipine group) were included in the meta-analysis. Patients who received oral nifedipine reached their target blood pressure more rapidly than those who received intravenous labetalol (MD 7.64, 95%CI 4.08-11.20, p < .0001). The nifedipine group required fewer doses to achieve the target blood pressure (MD 0.62, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.88, p < .00001). There were no meaningful differences on the maternal complications between the two groups, mainly including eclampsia (OR 1.51; 95% CI, 0.75-3.05; p = .25), headache (OR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.52-1.44; p = .57), nausea/vomiting (OR 1.50; 95% CI, 0.76-2.93; p = .24), hypotension (OR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.12-1.99; p = .32), dizziness (OR 2.01; 95% CI, 0.77-5.25; p = .16), HELLP (OR 0.27; 95% CI, 0.05-1.64; p = .16), palpitations (OR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.32-1.27; p = .20), flushing (OR 0.77; 95%CI, 0.18-3.22; p = .72). There were no significant difference in the neonatal complications, including NICU admission (OR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.87-1.77; p = .23), 5 min Apgar score < 7 (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82-1.39; p = .63), neonatal deaths (OR 1.08; 95%CI, 0.66-1.76; p = .77), FHR abnormality (OR 0.94; 95%CI, 0.47-1.88; p = .86).Conclusion: In conclusion, oral nifedipine could achieve target blood pressure more rapidly and required fewer doses than intravenous labetalol in the management of hypertensive emergencies during pregnancy.

Comparing Intravenous Labetalol and Intravenous Hydralazine for Managing Severe Gestational Hypertension

Background Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are the leading causes of both maternal morbidity and maternal mortality. Hypertensive disorders are acute obstetric emergencies, which refer to various life-threatening medical challenges known to develop during pregnancy, labor, and delivery, requiring urgent attention to reduce blood pressure (BP) for the benefit of the affected mothers and infants. Hydralazine and labetalol have been widely used as the first-line medications in the management of severe hypertension during pregnancy. However, the choice between these two drugs lacks clear evidence regarding their safety and superiority. Several studies have attempted to study intravenous (IV) labetalol versus hydralazine, but very few such comparison studies have been conducted in Africa.  Objective To compare the effectiveness of IV labetalol and IV hydralazine in reducing systolic and diastolic BP in pregnant women with severe hypertension. Also, to determine the time required for hydralazine and labetalol to lower BP to ≤150/100 mmHg, the number of doses needed for each drug, and evaluating maternal and perinatal outcomes. Study design This study employed an open-label randomized clinical trial design conducted in the labor, delivery, and antenatal ward of the Central and Stella Obasanjo Hospital in Benin City. A total of 120 women with severe pregnancy-induced hypertension were randomly assigned to two groups: Group X, consisting of 60 pregnant women, received IV hydralazine at a slow rate of 5 mg for five minutes, repeated every 20 minutes (maximum of five doses) until a blood pressure of ≤150/100 mmHg was achieved. Group Y, also consisting of 60 pregnant women, received IV labetalol in escalating doses of 25, 50, 75, 75, and 75 mg (maximum of 300 mg) every 20 minutes until the blood pressure reached ≤150/100 mmHg. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23 (IBM Inc., Armonk, New York). Result IV hydralazine achieved the target BP in an average time of 45.80 +/- 25.17 minutes, while IV labetalol took an average of 72.67 +/- 41.80 minutes (p=0.001). The number of doses required to reach the target BP differed significantly between the two drugs. Hydralazine required an average of 1.72 +/- 0.904 doses, whereas labetalol required an average of 3.72 +/- 1.782 doses (p=0.0001). While 45% of women in the hydralazine group attained the target BP with a single dose of hydralazine, only 31.1% of women in the labetalol group were able to attain the target BP with a single dose of labetalol (p=0.02). Overall, target BP was achieved in 55 out of 60 women (91.7%) who were randomized to receive IV hydralazine, whereas 45 out of 60 women (75%) who received IV labetalol achieved the target blood pressure. While hydralazine demonstrated more favorable results in terms of achieving target blood pressure, there were higher incidences of maternal adverse effects in the hydralazine group compared to the labetalol group. However, these adverse effects were not severe enough to warrant discontinuation of the medication. Conclusion IV hydralazine showed faster achievement of the target BP and a lower number of doses required compared to IV labetalol. Additionally, a higher percentage of women in the hydralazine group achieved the target BP with a single dose. However, there were more maternal adverse effects associated with hydralazine, although they were not severe. Perinatal outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Antihypertensives in Pregnancy

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) can result in significant maternal morbidity and even mortality. Available data suggest that many antihypertensives can be safely used in pregnant patients, albeit with close supervision of parameters like fetal growth and amniotic fluid volume. This article summarizes current guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in pregnancy and provides an in-depth guide to the available safety and efficacy data for antihypertensives during pregnancy and postpartum.

Dahlke J. Postpartum medical management of hypertension and risk of readmission for hypertensive complications

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk of readmission in those receiving no treatment, labetalol, nifedipine or both at hospital discharge following delivery complicated by presence of hypertension.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study at a single tertiary care center over a 4-year period (2017-2020). Those with peripartum hypertension (pHTN), defined as any SBP greater than 140 mmHg or DBP greater than 90 mmHg on two occasions 4 h apart during their admission for delivery were included. The primary outcome was postpartum readmission because of hypertensive complications. Analysis was stratified by medication prescribed at discharge (no treatment prescribed, labetalol, nifedipine, or both). The risks of readmission for the management of pHTN were estimated using logistic regression and adjusted for confounding variables.

RESULTS

Nineteen thousand, four hundred and twenty-five women gave birth during the study period and 4660 (24.0%) met the described definition of pHTN. Of those, 1232 (26.4%) were discharged on antihypertensive medication (s). There were 217 (4.7%) readmissions for hypertensive complications following discharge. Compared with patients who did not receive antihypertensive medication at discharge, any nifedipine prescription was found to significantly decrease the risk of readmission: monotherapy [aOR 0.27 (0.15-0.48)], nifedipine with labetalol [aOR 0.35 (0.16-0.77)]. Labetalol monotherapy was associated with increased risk of readmission [aOR 1.66 (1.06-2.61)].

CONCLUSION

The risk of postpartum readmission for hypertensive complication was reduced by 65% when patients were discharged on nifedipine monotherapy and 56% with combined nifedipine and labetalol treatment when compared with no treatment. Patients discharged on labetalol monotherapy were nearly six times as likely to be readmitted for hypertensive complications when compared with patients on nifedipine monotherapy.

Comparative efficacy and safety of oral nifedipine with other antihypertensive medications in the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are the most frequently occurring medical condition during pregnancy, resulting in fetal and/or maternal morbidity and mortality. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of nifedipine with other antihypertensive medications used in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

METHODOLOGY

A comprehensive search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager Software, and the pooled effect estimate was generated as standardized mean difference and odds ratio with 95% confidence interval and two-sided P -value.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis was comprised of 22 randomized control trials with 2595 participants. It was found that meantime and number of doses required to achieve target blood pressure were lower in the nifedipine group ( P  < 0.05). Even though it is statistically insignificant, fetal APGAR (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration) scores less than seven favors nifedipine intervention. Furthermore, none of the fetal or maternal secondary outcomes were found significant.

CONCLUSION

Nifedipine was found to be more effective than other antihypertensive medications to reduce blood pressure, particularly in patients with severe hypertension. However, future clinical studies, including real-world data are necessary to establish the safety profile of nifedipine concerning the fetal outcomes in hypertensive pregnant women.

Different dosage regimens of nifedipine, labetalol, and hydralazine for the treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) hydralazine, oral nifedipine, and IV labetalol with different dosage regimens in the treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the effects of hydralazine, nifedipine, and labetalol in the treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy.

RESULTS

A total of 21 RCTs with 2183 patients comparing 7 regimens (oral nifedipine 50,60,90 mg; hydralazine 15,25 mg; and labetalol 220,300 mg) were identified. Compared with IV labetalol 300 mg, nifedipine 50,60, and 90 mg significantly improved the successful treatment rate of severe hypertension during pregnancy, nifedipine 50 and 90 mg and IV hydralazine 25 mg required significantly fewer doses to achieve target blood pressure (BP), and nifedipine 50 mg took significantly shorter time to achieve target BP. Subgroup analysis showed that only nifedipine 50 mg tablets, not capsules, required a significantly shorter time and fewer doses to achieve target BP than IV labetalol 300 mg. Moreover, nifedipine 60,90 mg showed superior effectiveness than IV hydralazine 15,25 mg in the successful treatment rate of severe hypertension during pregnancy. SUCRA analysis suggested that nifedipine 50,60,90 mg as the better regimens with the lower rates of overall ADR and neonatal complications.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrated the superiority of oral nifedipine 50,60,90 mg, especially oral nifedipine 50 mg tablets, in the treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy than IV labetalol 300 mg, while oral nifedipine 60,90 mg also showed superiority in the successful treatment rate of severe hypertension during pregnancy than IV hydralazine 15,25 mg. However, the limitations of the underlying data indicate that future large-scale and rigorous RCTs are needed to confirm such findings.

Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Common Clinical Conundrums

Importance

Hypertensive complications of pregnancy comprise 16% of maternal deaths in developed countries and 7.4% of deaths in the United States. Rates of preeclampsia increased 25% from 1987 to 2004, and rates of severe preeclampsia have increased 6.7-fold between 1980 and 2003.

Objective

The aim of this study was to review current and available evidence for common clinical questions regarding the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

Evidence Acquisition

Original research articles, review articles, and guidelines on hypertension in pregnancy were reviewed.

Results

Severe gestational hypertension should be managed as preeclampsia with severe features. Serum uric acid levels can be useful in predicting development of superimposed preeclampsia for women with chronic hypertension. When presenting with preeclampsia with severe features before 34 weeks, expectant management should be considered only when both maternal and fetal conditions are stable. In the setting of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, oral antihypertensive medications should be initiated when systolic blood pressure is greater than 160 mm Hg or when diastolic blood pressure is greater than 110 mm Hg, with the most ideal agents being labetalol or nifedipine. Furthermore, although risk of preeclampsia recurrence in future pregnancy is low, women with a history of preeclampsia should be managed with 81 mg aspirin daily for preeclampsia prevention.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite the frequency with which hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are encountered clinically, situations arise frequently with limited evidence to guide providers in their management. An urgent need exists to better understand this disease to optimize outcomes for impacted patients.

Antihypertensive Medications for Severe Hypertension in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hypertension in pregnancy causes significant maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. A comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs for severe hypertension during pregnancy is needed to make informed decisions in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of antihypertensive drugs in severe hypertension during pregnancy.

METHODS

A systematic review using the electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed) and Cochrane Library was performed until August 2021. The risk-of-bias 2 tool was used to assess the risk-of-bias in each study included. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess heterogeneity and to estimate the pooled effects size.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 11 were included in the meta-analysis. Nifedipine was estimated to have a low risk in persistent hypertension compared to hydralazine (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.71) and labetalol (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.97). Dihydralazine was associated with a lower risk of persistent hypertension than ketanserin (RR 5.26, 95% CI 2.01-13.76). No difference was found in the risk of maternal hypotension, maternal and fetal outcomes, and adverse effects between antihypertensive drugs, except for dihydralazine, which was associated with more adverse effects than ketanserin.

CONCLUSIONS

Several drugs can be used to treat severe hypertension in pregnancy, including oral/sublingual nifedipine, IV/oral labetalol, oral methyldopa, IV hydralazine, IV dihydralazine, IV ketanserin, IV nicardipine, IV urapidil, and IV diazoxide. In addition, nifedipine may be preferred as the first-line agent. There was no difference in the risk of maternal hypotension, maternal and fetal outcomes, and adverse effects between the drugs, except for adverse effects in IV dihydralazine and IV ketanserin.

Guidelines for the management of women with severe pre-eclampsia

OBJECTIVE

To provide national guidelines for the management of women with severe pre-eclampsia.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 26 experts was formed. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industrial funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised.

METHODS

The last SFAR and CNGOF guidelines on the management of women with severe pre-eclampsia were published in 2009. The literature is now sufficient for an update. The aim of this expert panel guidelines is to evaluate the impact of different aspects of the management of women with severe preeclampsia on maternal and neonatal morbidities separately. The experts studied questions within 7 domains. Each question was formulated according to the PICO (Patients Intervention Comparison Outcome) model and the evidence profiles were produced. An extensive literature review and recommendations were carried out and analysed according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The SFAR/CNGOF experts panel provided 25 recommendations: 8 have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+/-), 9 have a moderate level of evidence (GRADE 2+/-), and for 7 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in expert opinions. No recommendation was provided for 3 questions. After one scoring round, strong agreement was reached between the experts for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong agreement among experts who made 25 recommendations to improve practices for the management of women with severe pre-eclampsia.

Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy

"Pregnancy-induced hypertension" (HDP) describes a spectrum of disorders, including gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and chronic hypertension with superimposed preeclampsia. Each of these disease processes can progress to a more pathologic case with worsening hypertensive disease, end-organ damage, and concerning clinical sequelae. Risk factors for HDP include nulliparity, a prior pregnancy complicated by hypertension, and obesity. Close blood pressure monitoring, serologic and urine testing, and prompt clinical follow-up remain the gold standard for antenatal diagnosis and surveillance. Optimizing maternal and neonatal outcomes involves early prenatal diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team-based approach, and referral to an experienced provider for cases with advanced pathology.

Effect of magnesium sulfate combined with labetalol on serum sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in patients with early-onset severe pre-eclampsia

The aim of the present study was to investigate the therapeutic effect of magnesium sulfate combined with labetalol on the early-onset severe pre-eclampsia (ES-PE) and explore the role of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlT-1), placental growth factor (PlGF), and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio in the treatment. A total of 164 ES-PE patients admitted to the Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital of Hubei (Wuhan, China) were assigned to this observational study. Among them, 83 patients were enrolled in group A and treated with magnesium sulfate combined with labetalol hydrochloride, and 81 patients were enrolled in group B and treated with magnesium sulfate. The therapeutic effect, adverse reactions and pregnancy outcomes in the two groups were analyzed. Serum sFlt-1 and PlGF concentrations, before and after treatment, were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the predictive value of pre-treatment serum sFlt-1/PlGF ratio for the clinical outcome. The effective rate was significantly higher in group A than that in group B. Group A presented superior pregnancy outcomes over group B. The serum sFlt-1 concentration and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio after treatment were significantly lower than those before treatment in groups A and B, whereas PlGF concentration was significantly higher after treatment in both groups. After treatment, group A had markedly lower serum sFlt-1 concentration and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio than group B, and markedly higher PlGF concentration than group B. The area under curve (AUC) of serum sFlt-1/PlGF ratio before treatment for the prediction of the clinical efficacy was 0.737. In conclusion, magnesium sulfate combined with labetalol could be effectively used for the treatment of ES-PE. The results of ELISA revealed that the balance of sFlT-1 and PlGF was improved after treatment and the sFlT-1/PlGF ratio was decreased. The assessment of sFlt-1/PlGF ratio before treatment was shown to have a certain predictive value for the efficacy of ES-PE treatment.

Oral Nifidepine versus IV labetalol in severe preeclampsia: A randomized control trial

Objective:

To compare oral Nifidepine and IV labetalol in terms of rapidity of BP control in severe preeclampsia.

Methods:

All patients coming to Services Hospital from March 2017 to February 2019 with diagnosis of severe preeclampsia ≥ 24 weeks gestation were randomized to either receive Nifidepine or Labetalol. Primary outcome measure was time taken to control BP and number of doses required. Secondary outcome measures were side effects of drugs, APGAR score, NICU admission and perinatal mortality.

Results:

Two hundred four patients were included in trial with 102 patients in each group. Labetalol took 22.6± 13.5minutes and Nifidepine took 22.09± 11.7 minutes to achieve target BP (p>0.05). Labetalol required 2.3± 1.58 doses and Nifidepine 2.2± 1.58 doses to control BP ( p>0.05). No maternal side effects were seen in 86 (84.31%) and 92(90.19%) patients in both groups (p>0.05). Mean gestational age at birth was 34.8 ±2.73weeks in Labetalol and 35.2±2.48 weeks in Nifidepine group (p>0.05). In labetalol group, 43 (42.15%) babies had APGAR Score < 7/10 and 23(22.54%) babies required admission to NICU while in Nifidepine group 42 (41.17%) babies had Apgar score < 7/10 & 30(29.4%) babies were admitted to NICU(p>0.05). There were 21(20.5%) perinatal deaths in labetalol Group-And 19(18.6%) in Nifidepine group (p>0.05)

Conclusion:

Oral Nifidepine and IV labetalol are equally efficacious in controlling BP in patients with severe pre eclampsia without any significant side effects.

Identification of factors associated with delayed treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergencies

BACKGROUND

Obstetric hypertensive emergency is defined as having systolic blood pressure ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥110 mm Hg, confirmed 15 minutes apart. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that acute-onset, severe hypertension be treated with first line-therapy (intravenous labetalol, intravenous hydralazine or oral nifedipine) within 60 minutes to reduce risk of maternal morbidity and death.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to identify barriers that lead to delayed treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was performed that compared women who were treated appropriately within 60 minutes vs those with delay in first-line therapy. We identified 604 patients with discharge diagnoses of chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension, or preeclampsia using International Classification of Diseases-10 codes and obstetric antihypertensive usage in a pharmacy database at 1 academic institution from January 2017 through June 2018. Of these, 267 women (44.2%) experienced obstetric hypertensive emergency in the intrapartum period or within 2 days of delivery; the results from 213 women were used for analysis. We evaluated maternal characteristics, presenting symptoms and circumstances, timing of hypertensive emergency, gestational age at presentation, and administered medications. Chi square, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and sample t-tests were used to compare the 2 groups. Univariable logistic regression was applied to determine predictors of delayed treatment. Multivariable regression model was also performed; C-statistic and Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to assess the model fit. A result was considered statistically significant at P<.05.

RESULTS

Of the 213 women, 110 (51.6%) had delayed treatment vs 103 (48.4%) who were treated within 60 minutes. Patients who had delayed treatment were 3.2 times more likely to have an initial blood pressure in the nonsevere range vs those who had timely treatment (odds ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-5.68). Timeliness of treatment was associated with presence or absence of preeclampsia symptoms; patients without preeclampsia symptoms were 2.7 times more likely to have delayed treatment (odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-4.80). Patients with hypertensive emergencies that occurred overnight between 10 pm and 6 am were 2.7 times more likely to have delayed treatment vs those emergencies that occurred between 6 am and 10 pm (odds ratio, 2.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-5.83). Delayed treatment also had an association with race, with white patients being 1.8 times more likely to have delayed treatment (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.08). Patients who were treated at <60 minutes had a lower gestational age at presentation vs those with delayed treatment (34.6±5 vs 36.6±4 weeks, respectively; P<.001). For every 1-week increase in gestational age at presentation, there was a 9% increase in the likelihood of delayed treatment (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.19). Another factor that was associated with delay of treatment was having a complaint of labor symptoms, which made patients 2.2 times as likely to experience treatment delay (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.41).

CONCLUSION

Initial blood pressure in the nonsevere range, absence of preeclampsia symptoms, presentation overnight, white race, having complaint of labor symptoms, and increasing gestational age at presentation are barriers that lead to a delay in the treatment of obstetric hypertensive emergency. Quality improvement initiatives that target these barriers should be instituted to improve timely treatment.

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 767: Emergent Therapy for Acute-Onset, Severe Hypertension During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period

Acute-onset, severe systolic hypertension; severe diastolic hypertension; or both can occur during the prenatal, intrapartum, or postpartum periods. Pregnant women or women in the postpartum period with acute-onset, severe systolic hypertension; severe diastolic hypertension; or both require urgent antihypertensive therapy. Introducing standardized, evidence-based clinical guidelines for the management of patients with preeclampsia and eclampsia has been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of adverse maternal outcomes. Individuals and institutions should have mechanisms in place to initiate the prompt administration of medication when a patient presents with a hypertensive emergency. Treatment with first-line agents should be expeditious and occur as soon as possible within 30-60 minutes of confirmed severe hypertension to reduce the risk of maternal stroke. Intravenous labetalol and hydralazine have long been considered first-line medications for the management of acute-onset, severe hypertension in pregnant women and women in the postpartum period. Although relatively less information currently exists for the use of calcium channel blockers for this clinical indication, the available evidence suggests that immediate release oral nifedipine also may be considered as a first-line therapy, particularly when intravenous access is not available. In the rare circumstance that intravenous bolus labetalol, hydralazine, or immediate release oral nifedipine fails to relieve acute-onset, severe hypertension and is given in successive appropriate doses, emergent consultation with an anesthesiologist, maternal-fetal medicine subspecialist, or critical care subspecialist to discuss second-line intervention is recommended.

Treatment and Prevention of Hypertensive Disorders During Pregnancy

This article reviews the pharmacology of the most commonly used antihypertensive medications during pregnancy; their mechanism of action; and the effects on the mother, the fetus, and lactation. Each class of antihypertensive pharmacologic agents have specific mechanisms of action by which they exert their antihypertensive effect. β-Adrenoreceptor antagonists block these receptors in the peripheral circulation. Calcium channel blockers result in arterial vasodilation. α-Agonists inhibit vasoconstriction. Methyldopa is a centrally acting adrenoreceptor antagonist. Vasodilators have a direct effect on vascular smooth muscle. Diuretics decrease intravascular volume. Medications acting on the angiotensin pathway are avoided during pregnancy because of fetotoxic effects.

IV labetalol and oral nifedipine in acute control of severe hypertension in pregnancy-A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of intravenous labetalol with oral nifedipine in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy with blood pressure ≥160/110 mm Hg.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a parallel double-blinded randomized controlled trial between December 2014 to December 2016 in 120 antenatal women of gestational age >28 weeks, admitted with severe hypertension of blood pressure ≥160/110 mm Hg to maternity ward at a tertiary hospital. The labetalol group received 20 mg initially followed by escalating doses of 40 mg, 80 mg, 80 mg and 80 mg (5 doses) every 15 min to a maximum of 300 mg. Nifedipine group received 10 mg initially followed by repeated doses of 20 mg every 15 min (total 5 doses) to a maximum of 90 mg. Vital signs were recorded every 15 min. -The time taken and the number of doses required to achieve the target blood pressure (150/100 mmHg). Survival analysis was used to compare the efficacy of treatment regimens.

RESULTS

Sixty women were randomised to each group and none were lost to follow-up. None of the patients in nifedipine group required labetalol, whereas three patients in labetalol group achieved target BP only after receiving nifedipine was administered after the maximum dose of labetalol.The mean time taken to achieve the target blood pressure in the labetalol group was higher (36.75 min) than in the nifedipine group (27.25 min) [mean difference 9.5 min,p = 0.002]. Nifedipine group required significantly lower doses (1.82 ± 0.83) as compared to labetalol (2.45 ± 1.32) [p = 0.002]. Nifedipine was 1.8 times more likely to achieve target blood pressure (Hazard Ratio = 1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Both intravenous Labetalol and oral Nifedipine were effective in controlling blood pressure. Nifedipine reduced BP more rapidly than Labetalol. Oral Nifedipine may be a better alternative because of its ease of oral administration and a flat dosing regimen.

Drugs for treating severe hypertension in pregnancy: a network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIMS

Several antihypertensive drugs are used in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. The present study is a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of these drugs.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing drugs used in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. The number of women achieving the target blood pressure (BP) was the primary outcome. Doses required and time taken for achieving the target BP, failure rate, and incidences of maternal tachycardia, palpitation, hypotension, headache, and neonatal death and stillbirth were the secondary outcomes. Mixed treatment comparison pooled estimates were generated using a random-effects model. Odds ratios for the categorical and mean difference for the numerical outcomes were the effect estimates.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were included in the systematic review and 46 in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in the number of patients achieving target BP was observed between any of the drugs. Diazoxide [-15 (-20.6, -9.4)], nicardipine [-11.8 (-22.3, -1.2)], nifedipine/celastrol [-19.3 (-27.4, -11.1)], nifedipine/vitamin D [-17.1 (-25.7, -9.7)], nifedipine/resveratrol [-13.9 (-22.6, -5.2)] and glyceryl trinitrate [-33.8 (-36.7, -31)] were observed to achieve the target BP (in minutes) more rapidly than hydralazine. Nifedipine required fewer doses than hydralazine for achieving the target BP. Glyceryl trinitrate and labetalol were associated with fewer incidences of tachycardia and palpitation respectively than hydralazine. Trial sequential analysis concluded adequate evidence for hydralazine and nifedipine compared with labetalol. Moderate quality of evidence was observed for direct comparison estimate between labetalol and hydralazine but was either low or very low for other comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The present evidence suggests similar efficacy between nifedipine, hydralazine and labetalol in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. Subtle differences may exist in their safety profile. The evidence is inadequate for other drugs.

Focused Update on Pharmacologic Management of Hypertensive Emergencies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hypertensive emergency is defined as a systolic blood pressure > 180 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure > 120 mmHg with evidence of new or progressive end-organ damage. The purpose of this paper is to review advances in the treatment of hypertensive emergencies within the last 5 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

New literature and recommendations for managing hypertensive emergencies in the setting of pregnancy, stroke, and heart failure have been published. Oral nifedipine is now considered an alternative first-line therapy, along with intravenous hydralazine and labetalol for women presenting with pre-eclampsia. Clevidipine is now endorsed by guidelines as a first-line treatment option for blood pressure reduction in acute ischemic stroke and may be considered for use in intracranial hemorrhage. Treatment of hypertensive heart failure remains challenging; clevidipine and enalaprilat can be considered for use in this population although data supporting their use remains limited.

Use of Antihypertensive Drugs During Preeclampsia

Treatment of pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia (PE), remain a challenging problem in obstetrics. Typically, aggressive antihypertensive drug treatment options are avoided to prevent pharmacological-induced hypotension. Another major concern of administering antihypertensive drugs during pregnancy is possible adverse fetal outcome. In addition, management of hypertension during pregnancy in chronic hypertensive patients or in patients with prior kidney problems are carefully considered. Recent studies suggest that PE patients are at increased cardiovascular risk postpartum. Therefore, these patients need to be monitored postpartum for the subsequent development of other cardiovascular diseases. In this review article, we review the antihypertensive drugs currently being used to treat patients with PE and the advantages or disadvantages of using these drugs during pregnancy.

To study the changes in fetal hemodynamics with intravenous labetalol or nifedipine in acute severe hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of intravenous labetalol or oral nifedipine in treatment of acute maternal hypertension and study the fetal hemodynamic changes using color Doppler ultrasound that follows treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Thirty women with severe preeclampsia having acute hypertension (more than or equal to 160/105 mmHg) were randomized in 2 groups to receive intravenous labetalol or oral nifedipine until blood pressure was lowered to less than or equal to 140/90 mmHg. Doppler vascular indices namely pulsatility index, resistance index, S/D ratio of umbilical (UA) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) were measured baseline at the time of acute severe hypertension and repeated after control of blood pressure, to assess the changes in fetal hemodynamics if any with labetalol or nifedipine.

RESULTS

Both nifedipine and labetalol were found to be effective when used for rapid control of blood pressure. Mean age of women in both groups and mean gestational age was statistically comparable. No change in fetal heart rate before and after treatment was observed in both groups. Doppler vascular indices of UA and MCA showed no significant changes as compared to baseline values in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of labetalol and nifedipine were not related to any significant changes in fetal Doppler, which is reassuring about the safety of these drugs when treating acute severe hypertension in pregnancy. Choice between these two drugs should be based on cost, availability respective contraindications, and clinician's experience.

Anesthetic Management of a Parturient with Hemolysis, Elevated Liver Enzyme Levels, and Low Platelet Syndrome Complicated by Renal Insufficiency and Coagulopathy

The objective of this study is to describe the anesthetic management of a parturient with hemolysis, elevated liver enzyme levels, and low platelet (HELLP) syndrome and renal insufficiency. A 28-year-old female patient, gestational age of 35 weeks, with hypertensive crisis (blood pressure 190/110 mmHg), was admitted for an emergency cesarean section after diagnosis of HELLP syndrome and renal insufficiency. We performed total intravenous general anesthesia with rapid sequence induction. During the surgical procedure, reduced urine output and coagulopathy were detected. After the treatments of transfusion, diuresis, and anticoagulation, the surgery finished uneventfully. The patient was taken to the Intensive Care Unit without extubation and discharged on the 6^th postoperative day. This case report revealed a successful anesthetic management applied to a pregnant woman with HELLP syndrome complicated by renal insuffciency and coagulopathy. There are several case reports about HELLP syndrome, but the patient in this paper is complicated with renal insuffciency and coagulopathy which made the treatment diffcult to handle.

Hydralazine vs nifedipine for acute hypertensive emergency in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of good quality evidence regarding the best therapeutic option for acute control of blood pressure during acute hypertensive emergency of pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the efficacy of intravenously administered hydralazine and oral nifedipine for acute blood pressure control in acute hypertensive emergency of pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN

In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, pregnant women (≥24 weeks period of gestation) with sustained increase in systolic blood pressure of ≥160 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of ≥110 mm Hg were randomized to receive intravenous hydralazine injection in doses of 5, 10, 10, and 10 mg and a placebo tablet or oral nifedipine (10 mg tablet up to 4 doses) and intravenous saline injection every 20 minutes until the target blood pressure of 150 mm Hg systolic and ≤100 mm Hg diastolic was achieved. Crossover treatment was administered if the initial treatment failed. The primary outcome of the study was time necessary to achieve target blood pressure. The secondary outcomes were the number of dosages required, adverse maternal and neonatal effects, and perinatal outcome.

RESULTS

From December 2014 through September 2015, we enrolled 60 patients. The median time to achieve target blood pressure was 40 minutes in both groups (intravenous hydralazine and oral nifedipine) (interquartile interval 5 and 40 minutes, respectively, P = .809). The median dose requirement in both groups was 2 (intravenous hydralazine and oral nifedipine) (interquartile range 1 and 2 doses, respectively, P = .625). Intravenous hydralazine was associated with statistically significantly higher occurrence of vomiting (9/30 vs 2/30, respectively, P = .042). No serious adverse maternal or perinatal side effects were witnessed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Both intravenous hydralazine and oral nifedipine are equally effective in lowering of blood pressure in acute hypertensive emergency of pregnancy.

Nifedipine Prevents Apoptosis of Alcohol-Exposed First-Trimester Trophoblast Cells

BACKGROUND

Maternal alcohol abuse leading to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) includes fetal growth restriction (FGR). Ethanol (EtOH) induces apoptosis of human placental trophoblast cells, possibly disrupting placentation and contributing to FGR in FASD. EtOH facilitates apoptosis in several embryonic tissues, including human trophoblasts, by raising intracellular Ca²⁺ . We previously found that acute EtOH exposure increases trophoblast apoptosis due to signaling from both intracellular and extracellular Ca²⁺ . Therefore, nifedipine, a Ca²⁺ channel blocker that is commonly administered to treat preeclampsia and preterm labor, was evaluated for cytoprotective properties in trophoblast cells exposed to alcohol.

METHODS

Human first-trimester chorionic villous explants and the human trophoblast cell line HTR-8/SVneo (HTR) were pretreated with 12.5 to 50 nM of the Ca²⁺ channel blocker nifedipine for 1 hour before exposure to 50 mM EtOH for an additional hour. Intracellular Ca²⁺ concentrations were monitored in real time by epifluorescence microscopy, using fluo-4-AM. Apoptosis was assessed by terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL), accumulation of cytoplasmic cytochrome c, and cleavage rates of caspase 3 and caspase 9.

RESULTS

The increase in intracellular Ca²⁺ upon exposure to EtOH in both villous explants and HTR cells was completely blocked (p < 0.05) when pretreated with nifedipine, accompanied by inhibition of EtOH-induced release of cytochrome c, caspase activities, and TUNEL.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that nifedipine can interrupt the apoptotic pathway downstream of EtOH exposure and could provide a novel strategy for future interventions in women with fetuses at risk for FASD.

A trial of oral nifedipine and oral labetalol in preeclampsia hypertensive emergency treatment

This observational retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare oral nifedipine and labetalol for emergency treatment of hypertension in preeclamptic patients. Time (minutes) and necessary doses were outlined to achieve blood pressure lower than 150/95 mmHg. In 14 patients with preeclampsia, 55 hypertensive emergencies were identified (BP >150/95). Of these emergencies, 43 were treated with oral nifedipine 10 mg (10 patients) and 12 with oral labetalol 100 mg (4 patients). To achieve a target blood pressure under 150/95, these doses were repeated as necessary every 20 min, up to a maximum of 4 doses. Oral nifedipine reduced BP more rapidly (31.30 vs. 53.50 min, p = .03). No maternal or foetal adverse events were observed and no major differences were found according to the type of delivery. Oral nifedipine is faster than and at least as safe as labetalol in pre-eclampsia hypertensive emergency treatment.

Longitudinal hemodynamics in acute phase of treatment with labetalol in hypertensive pregnant women to predict need for vasodilatory therapy

OBJECTIVE

Hypertensive pregnant women who do not respond to treatment with labetalol to control blood pressure (BP), but require vasodilatory therapy, progress rapidly to severe hypertension. This could be delayed by early recognition and individualized treatment. In this study, we sought to create prediction models from data at presentation and at 1 h and 24 h after commencement of treatment to identify patients who will not have a sustained response to labetalol and therefore need vasodilatory therapy.

METHODS

The study population comprised 134 women presenting with hypertension at a UK hospital. Treatment with oral labetalol was administered when BP was > 150/100 mmHg or > 140/90 mmHg with systemic disease. BP and hemodynamic parameters were recorded at presentation and at 1 h and 24 h after commencement of treatment. Labetalol doses were titrated to maintain BP around 135/85 mmHg. Women with unresponsive BP, despite labetalol dose maximization (2400 mg/day), received additional vasodilatory therapy with nifedipine. Binary logistic and longitudinal (mixed-model) data analyses were performed to create prediction models anticipating the likelihood of hypertensive women needing vasodilatory therapy. The prediction models were created from data at presentation and at 1 h and 24 h after treatment, to assess the value of central hemodynamics relative to the predictive power of BP, heart rate and demographic variables at these intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-two percent of our cohort required additional vasodilatory therapy antenatally. These women had higher rates of severe hypertension and delivered smaller babies at earlier gestational ages. The unresponsive women were more likely to be of black ethnicity, had higher BP and peripheral vascular resistance (PVR), and lower heart rate and cardiac output (CO) at presentation. Those who needed vasodilatory therapy showed an initial decrease in BP and PVR, which rebounded at 24 h, whereas BP and PVR in those who responded to labetalol showed a sustained decrease at 1 h and 24 h. Stroke volume and CO did not decrease during the acute phase of treatment in either group. The best model for prediction of the need for vasodilators was provided at 24 h by combining ethnicity and longitudinal BP and heart rate changes. The model achieved a detection rate of 100% for a false-positive rate of 20% and an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of 0.97.

CONCLUSION

Maternal demographics and hemodynamic changes in the acute phase of labetalol monotherapy provide a powerful tool to identify hypertensive pregnant patients who are unlikely to have their BP controlled by this therapy and will consequently need additional vasodilatory therapy. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

RESUMEN OBJETIVO

Las embarazadas hipertensas que no responden al tratamiento con labetalol para el control de la presión arterial (PA), pero que requieren terapia vasodilatadora, evolucionan rápidamente hacia una hipertensión severa. Ésta se puede retrasar mediante un diagnóstico precoz y un tratamiento individual. En este estudio se ha tratado de crear modelos de predicción a partir de datos al inicio del tratamiento y al cabo de 1 hora y de 24 horas después del mismo, para identificar a las pacientes que no mostrarán una respuesta constante al labetalol y que por lo tanto necesitarán terapia vasodilatadora. MÉTODOS: La población de estudio incluyó 134 mujeres con hipertensión en un hospital del Reino Unido. El tratamiento con labetalol por vía oral se administró cuando la PA fue >150/100 mm de Hg o >140/90 mm de Hg con enfermedad multisistémica. Se registró la PA y los parámetros hemodinámicos tanto al inicio como al cabo de 1 h y de 24 h después del inicio del tratamiento. Las dosis de Labetalol se ajustaron para mantener la PA en torno a los 135/85 mm de Hg. Las mujeres cuya PA no produjo respuesta, a pesar de haberles administrado la dosis máxima de labetalol (2400 mg/día), recibieron terapia vasodilatadora adicional con nifedipino. Se realizaron análisis de datos mediante logística binaria y longitudinal (modelo mixto), para crear modelos de predicción con los que pronosticar la probabilidad de la necesidad de terapia vasodilatadora en mujeres hipertensas. Los modelos de predicción se crearon a partir de datos al inicio y al cabo de 1 hora y 24 horas del tratamiento, para evaluar el valor de los parámetros hemodinámicos principales con respecto a la capacidad predictiva de la PA, la frecuencia cardíaca y las variables demográficas en estos intervalos.

RESULTADOS

El 22 % de la cohorte necesitó terapia vasodilatadora adicional antes del parto. Estas mujeres tuvieron tasas más altas de hipertensión grave y neonatos más pequeños en edades gestacionales más tempranas. Las mujeres que no respondieron al tratamiento fueron con más frecuencia de raza negra, tuvieron la PA y la resistencia vascular periférica (RVP) más alta, y la frecuencia cardíaca y el gasto cardíaco (GC) más bajos al inicio del tratamiento. Aquellas que necesitaron terapia vasodilatadora mostraron un descenso inicial de la PA y la RVP, que se recuperó al cabo de 24 h, mientras que la PA y la RVP en las que respondieron al labetalol mostraron una disminución constante al cabo de 1 h y de 24 h. El volumen sistólico y el GC no disminuyeron durante la fase aguda del tratamiento en ninguno de los grupos. El mejor modelo para la predicción de la necesidad de vasodilatadores se obtuvo a las 24 h mediante la combinación de la etnia con los cambios longitudinales de la PA y la frecuencia cardíaca. El modelo alcanzó una tasa de detección del 100% para una tasa de falsos positivos del 20% y un área bajo la curva de características operativas del receptor de 0,97. CONCLUSIÓN: Los datos demográficos maternos y los cambios hemodinámicos en la fase aguda de la monoterapia con labetalol constituyen una herramienta poderosa para identificar a las pacientes embarazadas hipertensas con pocas probabilidades de que se les pueda controlar su PA mediante esta terapia y que por lo tanto necesitarán terapia vasodilatadora adicional. : 、(blood pressure,BP),。。,1 h24 h,。 : 134。BP>150/100 mmHgBP>140/90 mmHg。1 h24 hBP。,BP135/85 mmHg。BP,()。logistic(),。1 h24 h,,BP、。 : 22%。。,BP(peripheral vascular resistance,PVR),(cardiac output,CO)。BPPVR,24 h,1 h24 hBPPVR。CO。24hBP。100%,20%,0.97。 : ,BP。.

Oral nifedipine versus intravenous labetalol for severe hypertension during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral nifedipine is recommended along with labetalol and hydralazine for treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy by most authorities. Although nifedipine is cheap and easily administered, the usage pattern among health care providers suggests a strong preference for labetalol despite lack of evidence for the same.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of oral nifedipine for treatment of severe hypertension of pregnancy compared with intravenous labetalol.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched for articles comparing oral nifedipine with intravenous labetalol for the treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy in any language, over Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials and Google Scholar from inception till February 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all RCTs that compared intravenous labetalol with oral nifedipine for treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy, addressing relevant efficacy and safety outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eligible studies were reviewed, and data were extracted onto a standard form. We used Cochrane review manager software for quantitative analysis. Data were analysed using a fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

The pooled analysis of seven trials (four from developing countries) consisting of 363 woman-infant pairs showed that oral nifedipine was associated with less risk of persistent hypertension (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.96) and reported maternal side effects (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.94). However, on sensitivity analysis the outcome 'persistent hypertension' was no longer significant. Other outcomes did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Oral nifedipine is as efficacious and safe as intravenous labetalol and may have an edge in low resource settings.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Although studies to date are few in number and small, nifedipine shows promise for severe hypertension in pregnancy.