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

Momina Zulfeen, Radha Tatapudi, Ravella Sowjanya

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)46-52
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Volume236
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-05-2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Labetalol
Nifedipine
Randomized Controlled Trials
Hypertension
Blood Pressure
Vital Signs
Lost to Follow-Up
Survival Analysis
Tertiary Care Centers
Gestational Age
Oral Administration

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cite this

@article{6b18e9ee8e68417ea9d43f1fb7d8018c,
title = "IV labetalol and oral nifedipine in acute control of severe hypertension in pregnancy–A randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Momina Zulfeen and Radha Tatapudi and Ravella Sowjanya",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.01.022",
language = "English",
volume = "236",
pages = "46--52",
journal = "European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology",
issn = "0028-2243",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

IV labetalol and oral nifedipine in acute control of severe hypertension in pregnancy–A randomized controlled trial. / Zulfeen, Momina; Tatapudi, Radha; Sowjanya, Ravella.

In: European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Vol. 236, 01.05.2019, p. 46-52.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - IV labetalol and oral nifedipine in acute control of severe hypertension in pregnancy–A randomized controlled trial

AU - Zulfeen, Momina

AU - Tatapudi, Radha

AU - Sowjanya, Ravella

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062802854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062802854&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.01.022

DO - 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.01.022

M3 - Article

VL - 236

SP - 46

EP - 52

JO - European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

JF - European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

SN - 0028-2243

ER -