m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2023

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

МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Li Lin, Xie Wenxia, Xu Hao, Cao Lei

Аннотация

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.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты