Premium
Oral nifedipine vs. intravenous labetalol for treatment of pregnancy‐induced severe pre‐eclampsia
Author(s) -
Shi D.D.,
Yang F.Z.,
Zhou L.,
Wang N.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.622
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2710
pISSN - 0269-4727
DOI - 10.1111/jcpt.12439
Subject(s) - labetalol , nifedipine , medicine , eclampsia , blood pressure , anesthesia , dose , pregnancy , adverse effect , pharmacology , calcium , biology , genetics
Summary What is known and objective Pre‐eclampsia is one of the most challenging diseases of pregnancy. Both nifedipine and labetalol have been used for treatment of pregnancy‐induced severe pre‐eclampsia. Methods In the present study, the efficacy and safety of oral nifedipine and intravenous labetalol for severe pre‐eclampsia therapy were compared. Eligible pregnant women with severe pre‐eclampsia ( n = 147) were allocated to receive either oral nifedipine or intravenous labetalol. The primary endpoint of the study was the time needed to achieve target blood pressure. Secondary outcomes were the time interval before a new hypertensive crisis following effective blood pressure control, number of doses and adverse effects. Results and discussion We found that the time taken to achieve effective blood pressure control was 35 vs. 42 min for oral nifedipine and intravenous labetalol, respectively ( P = 0·37). Compared with labetalol group, no significant difference was observed regarding time interval and drug dosages in nifedipine arm. Moreover, no serious side effects on maternal or perinatal were observed in either group. What is new and conclusions These findings suggest that both oral nifedipine and intravenous labetalol are effective for safely reducing blood pressure to target levels in patients with severe pre‐eclampsia.