Kaur Taranpreet, Kumari Kalpana, Rai Priyanka, Gupta Vandana, Pandey Sarika, Saini Shweta
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences, Saifai, Etawah, India.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, India.
Int J MCH AIDS. 2024 May 31;13:e011. doi: 10.25259/IJMA_660. eCollection 2024.
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 (CHNO), labetalol (CHNO), and hydralazine (CHN) 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.
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.
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 ( < 0.05). No side effects were seen in 70% of patients in the labetalol group and 71.67% in the nifedipine group ( > 0.05).
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.
高血压是孕期最常见的医学并发症之一,也是孕产妇发病和死亡的主要原因。重度子痫前期定义为血压(BP)>160/110 mmHg,并伴有头痛、视力模糊和上腹部疼痛等警示症状。硝苯地平(C₁₇H₁₈N₂O₆)、拉贝洛尔(C₁₉H₂₇NO₃)和肼屈嗪(C₈H₁₀N₄)是常用药物,均被推荐为一线用药。肼屈嗪与不良结局的发生率较高相关,因此口服硝苯地平已被提议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与静脉注射拉贝洛尔使重度子痫前期急性高血压正常化的能力/有效性,并评估分娩结局。通过适当的统计检验建立不同因素之间的关系。p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
本研究对2020年1月1日至2021年6月30日期间入住我院(一家三级医疗中心)的120例血压≥160/110 mmHg的产前妇女进行。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。主要结局指标是控制血压所需的时间和所需药物剂量。次要结局指标是分娩结局,如分娩方式、副作用情况以及新生儿重症监护病房的入院人数。
共纳入120例患者,每组60例。拉贝洛尔组达到目标血压<=140/90 mmHg所需时间为48.67±17.80分钟,硝苯地平组为64.33±9.81分钟(<0.05)。拉贝洛尔组70%的患者和硝苯地平组71.67%的患者未出现副作用(>0.05)。
静脉注射拉贝洛尔在恢复子痫前期孕妇血压方面比口服硝苯地平更快,可作为孕期高血压急症急性血压控制的一线药物。需要更多研究来评估本初步研究在大量患者中的结果。