A Comparative Study of Oral Nifedipine and Intravenous Labetalol for Acute Hypertensive Management in Pregnancy: Assessing Feto-Maternal Outcomes in a Hospital-based Randomized Control Trial.

International Journal of MCH and AIDS Pub Date : 2024-05-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.25259/IJMA_660
Taranpreet Kaur, Kalpana Kumari, Priyanka Rai, Vandana Gupta, Sarika Pandey, Vineeta, Shweta Saini
{"title":"A Comparative Study of Oral Nifedipine and Intravenous Labetalol for Acute Hypertensive Management in Pregnancy: Assessing Feto-Maternal Outcomes in a Hospital-based Randomized Control Trial.","authors":"Taranpreet Kaur, Kalpana Kumari, Priyanka Rai, Vandana Gupta, Sarika Pandey, Vineeta, Shweta Saini","doi":"10.25259/IJMA_660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Hypertension is one of the most common medical complications during pregnancy and a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Severe preeclampsia is defined as blood pressure (BP) >160/110 mmHg with warning signs such as headache, blurring of vision, and epigastric pain. Nifedipine (C<sub>17</sub>H<sub>18</sub>N<sub>2</sub>O<sub>6</sub>), labetalol (C<sub>19</sub>H<sub>24</sub>N<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>), and hydralazine (C<sub>8</sub>H<sub>8</sub>N<sub>4</sub>) are commonly used drugs, and all are recommended as first-line agents. Hydralazine is associated with a higher incidence of adverse outcomes, so oral nifedipine has been proposed as a first-line alternative to intravenous labetalol. Consequently, this study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of oral nifedipine with that of intravenous labetalol. The objective is to compare the ability/effectiveness of oral nifedipine and intravenous labetalol to normalize acute hypertension in severe preeclampsia and to assess the birth outcome. Relations between different factors were established by appropriate statistical tests. The p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted on 120 antenatal women with blood pressure ≥160/110 mmHg admitted to our hospital, a tertiary care center, from January 1st, 2020 to June 30th, 2021. Patients were randomized by a single blinding method to receive intravenous labetalol and oral nifedipine. The primary outcome measures were the time taken to control the blood pressure and the number of doses of drugs required. The secondary outcome measures were the birth outcome like a method of delivery, side effect profile, and the number of admissions in the neonatal intensive care unit.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 patients were included with 60 patients in each group. The labetalol group took 48.67 ± 17.80 minutes and the nifedipine group took 64.33 ± 9.81 minutes to achieve a target BP of <=140/90 mmHg (<i>p</i> < 0.05). No side effects were seen in 70% of patients in the labetalol group and 71.67% in the nifedipine group (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion and global health implications: </strong>Intravenous labetalol is faster in restoring blood pressure in pregnant women with preeclampsia than oral nifedipine and may be used as a first-line drug in the acute control of blood pressure in a hypertensive emergency during pregnancy. More studies are needed in order to evaluate the findings from this pilot study in a large sample of patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":30480,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of MCH and AIDS","volume":"13 ","pages":"e011"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11380905/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of MCH and AIDS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/IJMA_660","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: Hypertension is one of the most common medical complications during pregnancy and a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Severe preeclampsia is defined as blood pressure (BP) >160/110 mmHg with warning signs such as headache, blurring of vision, and epigastric pain. Nifedipine (C17H18N2O6), labetalol (C19H24N2O3), and hydralazine (C8H8N4) are commonly used drugs, and all are recommended as first-line agents. Hydralazine is associated with a higher incidence of adverse outcomes, so oral nifedipine has been proposed as a first-line alternative to intravenous labetalol. Consequently, this study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of oral nifedipine with that of intravenous labetalol. The objective is to compare the ability/effectiveness of oral nifedipine and intravenous labetalol to normalize acute hypertension in severe preeclampsia and to assess the birth outcome. Relations between different factors were established by appropriate statistical tests. The p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Methods: The study was conducted on 120 antenatal women with blood pressure ≥160/110 mmHg admitted to our hospital, a tertiary care center, from January 1st, 2020 to June 30th, 2021. Patients were randomized by a single blinding method to receive intravenous labetalol and oral nifedipine. The primary outcome measures were the time taken to control the blood pressure and the number of doses of drugs required. The secondary outcome measures were the birth outcome like a method of delivery, side effect profile, and the number of admissions in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Results: A total of 120 patients were included with 60 patients in each group. The labetalol group took 48.67 ± 17.80 minutes and the nifedipine group took 64.33 ± 9.81 minutes to achieve a target BP of <=140/90 mmHg (p < 0.05). No side effects were seen in 70% of patients in the labetalol group and 71.67% in the nifedipine group (p > 0.05).

Conclusion and global health implications: Intravenous labetalol is faster in restoring blood pressure in pregnant women with preeclampsia than oral nifedipine and may be used as a first-line drug in the acute control of blood pressure in a hypertensive emergency during pregnancy. More studies are needed in order to evaluate the findings from this pilot study in a large sample of patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
口服硝苯地平与静脉注射拉贝洛尔治疗妊娠期急性高血压的比较研究:在一项医院随机对照试验中评估胎儿和产妇的结局。
背景和目的:高血压是妊娠期最常见的内科并发症之一,也是孕产妇死亡和发病的主要原因。重度子痫前期的定义是血压(BP)>160/110 mmHg,并伴有头痛、视力模糊和上腹痛等警示症状。硝苯地平(C17H18N2O6)、拉贝洛尔(C19H24N2O3)和肼屈嗪(C8H8N4)是常用药物,均被推荐为一线药物。肼屈嗪的不良反应发生率较高,因此有人建议将口服硝苯地平作为静脉注射拉贝洛尔的一线替代药物。因此,本研究旨在比较口服硝苯地平与静脉注射拉贝洛尔的疗效和安全性。目的是比较口服硝苯地平和静脉注射拉贝洛尔治疗重度子痫前期急性高血压的能力/疗效,并评估分娩结局。通过适当的统计检验确定不同因素之间的关系。P 值 方法:研究对象为 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 6 月 30 日在我院(一家三级医疗中心)住院的 120 名血压≥160/110 mmHg 的产前妇女。患者通过单盲法随机接受静脉注射拉贝洛尔和口服硝苯地平治疗。主要结果指标是控制血压所需的时间和所需的药物剂量。次要结果指标是分娩方式、副作用和新生儿重症监护室住院次数等出生结果:共纳入 120 名患者,每组 60 人。拉贝洛尔组和硝苯地平组分别用时(48.67±17.80)分钟和(64.33±9.81)分钟达到目标血压(P < 0.05)。拉贝洛尔组有 70% 的患者未出现副作用,硝苯地平组有 71.67% 的患者未出现副作用(P > 0.05):与口服硝苯地平相比,静脉注射拉贝洛尔能更快地恢复先兆子痫孕妇的血压,可作为妊娠期高血压急症血压急性控制的一线药物。需要进行更多的研究,以便在大样本患者中评估这项试点研究的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessing the Impact of an Intervention on Caregivers' Awareness and Completion of Continuum of Care Among Pregnant Women. Involvement of Male Partners in Sustaining Interventions for Preventing Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV Among Women with HIV. Immunization Status, Immunization Coverage, and Factors Associated with Immunization Service Utilization Among HIV-Exposed and HIV-Infected Children in India. Oral Manifestations of HIV Infection and Dental Health Needs of Children with HIV Attending HIV Treatment Clinics in Western Cameroon. Cervical Precancer Treatment Outcomes in Cameroon.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1