Intravenous Labetalol Research Articles

Abstract 4144508: Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Hydralazine vs Intravenous Labetalol in Management of Gestational Hypertension: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Hypertension in pregnancy affects around 15% of all pregnant women and is one of the leading causes of maternal and fetal, mortality and morbidity. Hydralazine and labetalol are administered intravenously to control hypertension in pregnant women. However, data regarding their comparative efficacy and safety is limited. Considering the paucity of data, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool all the studies published on this subject and provide robust evidence. Methods: We followed PRISMA guidelines for conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis. Two investigators searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception until May 2024. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effects of intravenous labetalol versus hydralazine in pregnant women with hypertensive disorder of pregnancy were included in our pooled analysis. A random-effects model was used to calculate the weighted mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratio (OR) for the discrete outcomes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We considered a p-value of less than 0.05 statistically significant in all cases. Results: A total of 8 RCTs with total population of 1138 patients were pooled. The pooled analysis showed that the final systolic blood pressure (MD = -4.74, 95% CI: -12.09 to 2.62, p = 0.21) and diastolic pressure (MD = -0.86, 95% CI: -9.22 to 7.49, p = 0.84) remained comparable. The incidence of maternal hypotension (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.29, p<0.001) was significantly lower with labetalol administration compared to hydralazine. However, we found no statistically significant difference between two groups for persistent hypertension (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.97, p = 0.72), neonatal death (OR = 2.97, 95% CI: 0.58 to 15.25, p = 0.19), stillbirth (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.25 to 2.17, p = 0.57), fetal arrhythmia (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.07, p = 0.08), APGAR score < 7 at 5 min (OR = 2.44, 95% CI: 0.69 to 8.65, p = 0.17), cesarean section (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.80, p = 0.93), and the number of mean doses required for successful blood pressure control (MD = -0.37, 95% CI: -1.07 to 0.34, p = 0.31). Conclusion: Intravenous labetalol and hydralazine have similar efficacy and safety profiles for blood pressure control in pregnant women. However, the risk of maternal hypotension is significantly lower with labetalol administration as compared to hydralazine.

Rheumatoid arthritis: a rare cause of pachymeningitis and optic neuritis

Introduction: Rheumatoid pachymeningitis and optic neuritis are rare complications of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are a diagnosis of exclusion. Case description: A 75-year-old male with a history of seronegative RA presented to the emergency department with left eye pain and blurry vision lasting two days. He had been diagnosed with seronegative RA around nine months previously. His blood pressure was elevated at 204/75 mmHg upon arrival. Physical examination revealed left conjunctival injection, mild ptosis, painful extraocular movements and tenderness over the orbit and sinuses. Initial treatments included painkillers and intravenous labetalol, which alleviated his symptoms and decreased his blood pressure. Laboratory tests showed a C-reactive protein of 2.5 mg/dl and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 32 mm/h, with other blood work unremarkable. A computed tomography (CT) angiogram of the head and neck showed no high-grade stenosis. Given his RA history, initial concerns included scleritis. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and orbit revealed inflammation around the left optic nerve, and pachymeningitis at the left cerebral convexity and interhemispheric fissure, suggesting hypertrophic pachymeningitis. An ophthalmologic examination was unremarkable. Treatment was adjusted to include pulse doses of intravenous methylprednisolone for optic neuritis, resulting in significant pain relief. Though inadequate for complete testing, a lumbar puncture indicated an inflammatory disorder with elevated glucose (199 mg/dl), protein (109 mg/dl), and unremarkable WBC/RBC and Gram staining. Cytology and culture were unremarkable. The most likely diagnosis at this point was rheumatological meningitis and rheumatological optic neuritis. The patient improved markedly with high-dose steroids over four days and was discharged on prednisone. Conclusion: In cases of optic neuritis and pachymeningitis, RA should remain on the differential in patients with or without a prior diagnosis.

Short-Acting Oral Nifedipine versus Intravenous Labetalol for the Control of Severe Hypertension in the Postpartum Period: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of oral short-acting (SA) nifedipine with intravenous (IV) labetalol for the treatment of postpartum (PP) severe hypertension. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women who delivered at a tertiary care facility between January and December 2018, had not previously received antihypertensive medication, and required treatment for PP severe hypertension defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 160 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥110 mm Hg. Exposure groups were defined by the receipt of either oral SA nifedipine or IV labetalol. The primary outcome was time (minutes) to BP control (SBP < 160 mm Hg and DBP <110 mm Hg). Secondary outcomes included number of doses required to achieve BP control, crossover to the alternative medication, and recurrence of severe range BP after the achievement of BP control. t-Tests and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used to analyze continuous variables and chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze categorical variables. Multivariable linear regression models were conducted for the primary outcome, controlling for potential confounders in a sequential fashion across three models. A Kaplan-Meier plot was also created. Of the 99 women included, 74 received oral SA nifedipine and 25 received IV labetalol. There was no significant difference in minutes to initial BP control between groups (30.5 minutes [interquartile range, IQR: 20.0-45.0] vs. 25.0 minutes [IQR: 14.0-50.0]; p = 0.82) or in the rate of recurrent severe BP. However, patients who received nifedipine required fewer doses to achieve control (p < 0.01) and did not require crossover (0 vs. 12%, p = 0.01). Both oral SA nifedipine and IV labetalol are effective options for treating PP severe hypertension. An initial choice of nifedipine was associated with a lower requirement for subsequent doses of medication and no need for crossover to an alternative antihypertensive medication. · Nifedipine and labetalol effectively treat PP severe HTN.. · Nifedipine requires fewer doses to treat PP severe HTN.. · Both have low recurrence rates of severe HTN..

Effectiveness and safety of intravenous labetalol in severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia at a teaching institution in Chhattisgarh.

Severe hypertension in pregnancy deserves prompt recognition and urgent effective reduction in order to reduce the risk of complications such as eclampsia and HELLP syndrome and to achieve desirable neonatal outcomes. There is a need for effective and safe parenteral antihypertensive treatment. We studied the effectiveness and safety of intravenous labetalol use in severe hypertension in pregnancy and post-partum period in a teaching hospital in Chhattisgarh in 101 women. IV labetalol was given as bolus doses till the blood pressures were controlled. Neonatal outcomes were recorded, and adverse effects such as hypotension, hypoglycemia, and neonatal asphyxia were documented. Intravenous labetalol given as a single bolus of 20 mg was efficacious in controlling blood pressures in 93 out of 101 (93%) women, and the rest were controlled with 1 or 2 additional doses in 1-3 hours. No neonatal deaths happened beyond the 13 intrauterine fetal deaths at presentation. No women developed any episodes of hypotension, tachycardia of more than 100, or nausea or vomiting on labetalol. Intravenous labetalol, even as a single bolus dose, is highly efficacious and is free of any major adverse effects.

Optimal treatment for women with acute hypertension in pregnancy; a randomized trial comparing intravenous labetalol versus nicardipine

ObjectivesBlood pressure control in severe hypertension of pregnancy is crucial for mother and neonate. In absence of evidence, guidelines recommend either intravenous labetalol or nicardipine. We compared the effectiveness and safety of these two drugs in women with severe hypertension in pregnancy. Study designWe performed an open label randomized controlled trial. Women with a singleton pregnancy complicated by severe hypertension (systolic ≥ 160 mmHg and/or diastolic ≥ 110 mmHg) requiring intravenous antihypertensive treatment were randomized to intravenous labetalol or intravenous nicardipine. The primary outcome was a composite adverse neonatal outcome defined as severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS), Broncho Pulmonary Dysplasia (BPD), Intraventricular Hemorrhage (IVH) IIB or worse, Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC), or perinatal death defined as fetal death or neonatal death before discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).Based on a power analysis, we estimated that 472 women (236 per group) needed to be included to detect a difference of 15% in the primary outcome with 90% power. The study was halted prematurely at 30 inclusions because of slow recruitment and trial fatigue. ResultsBetween August 2018 and April 2022, we randomized 30 women of which 16 were allocated to intravenous nicardipine and 14 to intravenous labetalol. The composite adverse neonatal outcome was not significantly different between the two groups (25 % versus 43 % OR 0.28 (95 % CI 0.05–1.43), p = 0.12)). Respiratory distress syndrome occurred more often in the labetalol group than in the nicardipine group (42.9 % versus 12.5 %). Neonatal hypoglycemia occurred more often in the nicardipine group than in the labetalol group (31 % versus 7 %). Time until blood pressure control was faster in women treated with nicardipine than in women treated with labetalol (45 (15–150 min vs. 120 (60–127,5) min). ConclusionIn our prematurely halted small RCT, we were unable to provide evidence for the optimal choice of treatment for severe hypertension to improve neonatal outcome and/or to obtain faster blood pressure control. Differences in Respiratory distress syndrome and neonatal hypoglycemia between the groups might be the result of coincidental finding due to the small groups included in the study. A larger randomized trial would be needed to determine the safest and most efficacious (intravenous) therapy for severe hypertension in pregnancy. This study emphasizes the challenges of conducting a RCT for the optimal treatment for these women.

A Randomized Trial of Intravenous Labetalol Versus Oral Nifedipine in Acute Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Emergencies of Pregnancy

Background: Hypertension in pregnancy, called a disease of degree is more of a sign than a disease by itself. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including chronic hypertension, with or without superimposed pre-eclampsia/eclampsia, gestational hypertension, HELLP syndrome, pre-eclampsia with or without severe features or eclampsia present a significant risk of morbidity to both mother and fetus. Effective pharmacologic therapy modifies the course of the disease. The effective use of anti-hypertensive therapy should be based on well designed controlled clinical trials and the experience of the clinician with the drugs. Hypertensive disorders complicate 5-10% of all pregnancies worldwide. 1 Dangerous hypertension is a harbinger of cerebrovascular accidents, eclampsia, hypertensive encephalopathy and other end organ damage with a poor perinatal outcome. 2 Methods: This prospective randomized double blind comparative clinical trial with randomization done using computer generated numbers study was carried out in 100 cases being brought in OBG department of AL Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, from July 2023 to December 2023. A detailed data of sociodemographic profile, general examination and obstetric examination were carried out. The pregnant women were randomized with computer generated numbers into two groups to receive either oral nifedipine or intermittent intravenous labetalol injections. Results: There is no significant difference in the parity of both the groups. Majority of the patients constituting 80% of group A and 58% of group B were primigravida. 69% enrolled in the study were primigravida. There is a higher incidence of pre-eclampsia in the first pregnancy. The majority of the patients had gestational age of 34 to 36 weeks constituting 48% on the whole with 50% and 46% respectively in group A and B. The recruited patients did not significantly differ in gestational age

An audit of postoperative haemodynamic stability after intraoperative labetalol administration in non-cardiac surgery patients.

Anaesthesiologists commonly use intravenous labetalol to adjust patient haemodynamics during surgical procedures. Cases of profound hypotension after continuous labetalol infusions have been reported; however, there is limited evidence regarding the safety of intraoperative labetalol boluses. This audit examined the frequency of postoperative hypotension and bradycardia in 292 adult non-cardiac surgery patients treated with intraoperative labetalol boluses. Blood pressure and heart rate data were collected from the post-anaesthesia care unit and on the floor units for 24 hours after surgery. The median total intraoperative labetalol dose was 10mg. A total of 30/292 patients had all-cause postoperative hypotension within 24 hours of surgery, 26 of which had other medical or surgical precipitants. Fifteen patients developed bradycardia. There were no deaths or intensive care unit admissions attributed to labetalol. This audit demonstrates a low risk of all-cause postoperative hypotension (10%) and bradycardia (5%) after the use of small IV doses of intraoperative labetalol.

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.

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. 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 (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). 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.

Comparison of the efficacy of intravenous labetalol versus oral nifedipine in patients with severe pregnancy-induced hypertension beyond 30 weeks of gestation.

It is a retrospective observational study, intravenous labetalol 20 mg was given initially in escalating doses of 40 mg, 80 mg, 80 mg, and 80 mg every 15 mins up to a maximum dose of 5 or until the goal BP ≤150/100 mmHg was reached. Some women with severe pregnancy-induced hypertension were given oral nifedipine to control their BP according to the choice of the attending consultant. Nifedipine 10 mg tablet was given initially in repeated doses of 10 mg every 15 mins up to a maximum of five doses or until the goal of BP ≤150/100 mmHg was reached. In our study, we found that there was a strong statistical significance in stabilizing the BP with oral nifedipine than with intravenous labetalol drug used. The majority of the patients in the oral nifedipine group got to normal BP quicker when compared to intravenous labetalol group patients. From this study, both drugs were found to be safe and effective in the reduction in BP. The use of nifedipine may be recommended in low-resource settings since it has an oral regimen and dosage is simple when compared to incremental intravenous dosing of labetalol.

Oral Nifedipine Versus Intravenous Labetalol for Hypertensive Emergencies During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

(Abstracted from J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2023;36(2):2235057) Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and perinatal death. Severe pregnancy hypertension is defined as 160/110 mm Hg.

Physiologic Treatment of Severe Hypertension in Pregnancy and Postpartum.

We aimed to evaluate physiologic treatment of severe hypertension. This was a retrospective cohort study of pregnant and postpartum patients with severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] 160 mm Hg or higher or diastolic BP 110 mm Hg or higher) treated with intravenous labetalol or hydralazine at a single tertiary care center between 2013 and 2018. Patients were classified as having physiologic treatment if they had hyperdynamic physiology (pulse pressure 65 mm Hg or higher) and received labetalol or had vasoconstrictive physiology (diastolic BP 100 mm Hg or higher) and received hydralazine. The primary outcome was number of antihypertensive doses to achieve nonsevere BP. Of 1,120 patients included in the analysis, 653 had physiologic treatment and 467 had nonphysiologic treatment, with 16 (1.4%) excluded for inability to classify physiology. Physiologic treatment was associated with fewer antihypertensive doses (1.4±0.9 doses vs 1.6±1.4 doses; adjusted β -0.28, 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.14) and lower odds of medication conversion (2.5% vs 4.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.48, 95% CI, 0.24-0.93) but no difference in time to nonsevere BP (31 minutes [interquartile range 16-66 minutes] vs 34 minutes [interquartile range 15-76 minutes]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 95% CI, 0.9-1.2). Physiologic treatment of severe hypertension warrants further evaluation.

Comparison of outcomes following intravenous magnesium compared with intravenous labetalol and oral nifedipine in 355 pregnant Han Chinese women with preeclampsia.

As per the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2013, magnesium sulfate is the gold standard for the management of preeclampsia, but it has a short action time that does not provide stable maintenance of blood pressure. Labetalol is currently recommended as first-line treatment by the national UK guidance. This study included 355 pregnant Han Chinese women with preeclampsia and aimed to compare outcomes following intravenous magnesium compared with intravenous labetalol and oral nifedipine. Women received 4 g intravenous magnesium sulfate followed by the maintenance dose of 1 g/h intravenous magnesium sulfate (MS cohort, n = 104) or intravenous labetalol (LB cohort, n = 115), or oral nifedipine (NF cohort, n = 136). Therapy success: systolic blood pressure ~140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure ~90 mm Hg, therapy failure: persistent systolic blood pressure ≥ 160 or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110 mm Hg after maximum dosage of therapy (EL). Women of all cohorts successfully decreased systolic and diastolic blood pressures at EL as compared to them before therapy conditions (P < .001, for all). At EL, systolic and diastolic blood pressures of women of the LB cohort decreased more than those of women of the MS and NF cohorts (P < .05, for all). Therapy was more successful in women of the LB cohort than those of the NF cohort (107 [93%] vs 112 [82%], P = .0132). More numbers of women were reduced blood pressure after 1 day of therapy from the LB cohort than those of the NF (75 [65%] vs 21 [15%]) and MS (75 [65%] vs 35 [34%]) cohorts (P < .0001 for both). Labetalol-induced tachycardia, bradycardia, and intracranial hemorrhage in pregnant women and respiratory distress syndrome and hypoglycemia in neonates. Intravenous labetalol provides proper reduction of blood pressure in Han Chinese women with preeclampsia but has the risk of undesirable maternal and neonatal adverse effects (Level of Evidence: IV; Technical Efficacy: Stage 4).

Safety and efficacy of continuous intravenous labetalol for blood pressure control in neurosurgical patients.

Current evidence supporting the use of continuous intravenous labetalol for blood pressure (BP) control in neurosurgical patients is limited. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of labetalol in neurosurgical patients and identify potential contributing factors to these outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of neurosurgical patients who received continuous labetalol infusion for BP control. Efficacy was assessed based on the time needed to achieve the target BP (systolic BP ≤ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≤ 90 mmHg). Safety was assessed according to adverse events that occurred during labetalol administration. Factors associated with efficacy and safety were analyzed using a logistic regression model. Among 79 patients enrolled in this study, 47 (59.49%) achieved the target BP within 1 hour (early response). No factors were significantly associated with an early response. Hypotension was observed in 11 patients (13.9%), and bradycardia was observed in 8 patients (10.1%). Hypotension was significantly associated with patient age and motor impairment, while bradycardia was significantly associated with diabetes mellitus. The efficacy and safety profiles of labetalol infusion suggest this treatment as a promising option for BP control in neurosurgical patients.

Evaluation of Medication Exposure on Exacerbation of Disease in Patients With Myasthenia Gravis.

In patients with myasthenia gravis (MG), worsening of symptoms poses a risk of respiratory failure which can be precipitated by medication use. Although purported, the risks associated with administration of certain medications are not fully elucidated. Thus, clinical decision support involving a best practice alert was executed to caution providers of drug-disease interactions when ordering a potentially harmful medication. We performed an analysis of the alert overrides with subsequent medication exposure to determine the incidence of MG exacerbations. This retrospective chart-review evaluated adult patients with MG at 2 large academic medical centers via electronic health records between November-2019 and November-2021 who received a medication following override of the clinical decision support tool. The primary outcome was proportion of patient encounters complicated by myasthenic exacerbations after potentially harmful medication administration. Secondary outcomes included changes in motor strength, length of stay, discharge disposition, unplanned level-of-care escalations, and changes to immunosuppressant therapy following medication administration. A total of 70 orders were assessed in 38 patients across 55 encounters. Medications administered during these encounters included macrolides, fluoroquinolones, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and magnesium sulfate. Exacerbation of disease occurred in 7 patient encounters (12.7%) and occurred after intravenous magnesium or intravenous labetalol. In 5/7 events, at least 1 other risk factor associated with a myasthenic exacerbation was present. Of the medications reported to potentially worsen MG, intravenous labetalol and intravenous magnesium were the 2 agents associated with myasthenic exacerbations with a higher incidence in patients harboring additional risk factors.

Cerebral Blood Flow Assessed with Phase-contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging during Blood Pressure Changes with Noradrenaline and Labetalol: A Trial in Healthy Volunteers.

Adequate cerebral perfusion is central during general anesthesia. However, perfusion is not readily measured bedside. Clinicians currently rely mainly on mean arterial pressure (MAP) as a surrogate, even though the relationship between blood pressure and cerebral blood flow is not well understood. The aim of this study was to apply phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging to characterize blood flow responses in healthy volunteers to commonly used pharmacologic agents that increase or decrease arterial blood pressure. Eighteen healthy volunteers aged 30 to 50 yr were investigated with phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging. Intra-arterial blood pressure monitoring was used. First, intravenous noradrenaline was administered to a target MAP of 20% above baseline. After a wash-out period, intravenous labetalol was given to a target MAP of 15% below baseline. Cerebral blood flow was measured using phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging and defined as the sum of flow in the internal carotid arteries and vertebral arteries. Cardiac output (CO) was defined as the flow in the ascending aorta. Baseline median cerebral blood flow was 772 ml/min (interquartile range, 674 to 871), and CO was 5,874 ml/min (5,199 to 6,355). The median dose of noradrenaline was 0.17 µg · kg-1 · h-1 (0.14 to 0.22). During noradrenaline infusion, cerebral blood flow decreased to 705 ml/min (606 to 748; P = 0.001), and CO decreased to 4,995 ml/min (4,705 to 5,635; P = 0.01). A median dose of labetalol was 120 mg (118 to 150). After labetalol boluses, cerebral blood flow was unchanged at 769 ml/min (734 to 900; P = 0.68). CO increased to 6,413 ml/min (6,056 to 7,464; P = 0.03). In healthy, awake subjects, increasing MAP using intravenous noradrenaline decreased cerebral blood flow and CO. These data do not support inducing hypertension with noradrenaline to increase cerebral blood flow. Cerebral blood flow was unchanged when decreasing MAP using labetalol.

Comparing Intravenous Labetalol and Intravenous Hydralazine for Managing Severe Gestational Hypertension.

Background Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are the leading causes of both maternal morbidity and maternal mortality. Hypertensive disorders are acute obstetric emergencies, which refer to various life-threatening medical challenges known to develop during pregnancy, labor, and delivery,requiring urgent attention to reduce blood pressure (BP) for the benefit ofthe affected mothers and infants. Hydralazine and labetalol have been widely used as the first-line medications in themanagement of severe hypertension during pregnancy. However, the choice between these two drugs lacks clear evidence regarding their safety and superiority. Several studies have attempted to study intravenous (IV) labetalol versus hydralazine, but very fewsuch comparison studies havebeen conducted in Africa. Objective To compare the effectiveness of IV labetalol and IV hydralazine in reducing systolic and diastolic BP in pregnant women with severe hypertension. Also, to determine thetime required for hydralazine and labetalol to lower BP to ≤150/100 mmHg, the number of doses needed for each drug, and evaluating maternal and perinatal outcomes. Study design This study employed an open-label randomized clinical trial design conducted in the labor, delivery, and antenatal ward of the Central and Stella Obasanjo Hospital in Benin City. A total of 120 women with severe pregnancy-induced hypertension were randomly assigned to two groups: Group X, consisting of 60 pregnant women, received IV hydralazine at a slow rate of 5 mg for five minutes, repeated every 20 minutes (maximum of five doses) until a blood pressure of ≤150/100 mmHg was achieved. Group Y, also consisting of 60 pregnant women, received IV labetalol in escalating doses of 25, 50, 75, 75, and 75 mg (maximum of 300 mg) every 20 minutes until the blood pressure reached ≤150/100 mmHg. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23(IBMInc., Armonk, New York). Result IV hydralazine achieved the target BP in an average time of 45.80 +/- 25.17 minutes, while IV labetalol took an average of 72.67 +/- 41.80 minutes (p=0.001). The number of doses required to reach the target BP differed significantly between the two drugs. Hydralazine required an average of 1.72 +/- 0.904 doses, whereas labetalol required an average of 3.72 +/- 1.782 doses (p=0.0001). While 45% of women in the hydralazine group attained the target BP with a single dose of hydralazine, only 31.1% of women in the labetalol group were able to attain the target BP with asingle doseof labetalol(p=0.02). Overall, target BP was achieved in 55 out of 60 women (91.7%) who were randomized to receive IV hydralazine, whereas 45 out of 60 women (75%) who received IV labetalol achieved the target blood pressure. While hydralazine demonstrated more favorable results in terms of achieving target blood pressure, there were higher incidences of maternal adverse effects in the hydralazine group compared to the labetalol group. However, these adverse effects were not severe enough to warrant discontinuation of the medication. Conclusion IV hydralazine showed faster achievement of the target BP and a lower number of doses required compared to IV labetalol. Additionally, a higher percentage of women in the hydralazine group achieved the target BP with a single dose. However, there were more maternal adverse effects associated with hydralazine, although they were not severe. Perinatal outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Labetalol Versus Hydralazine, for Severe Hypertension in Obstetric Patients, at Tertiary Care Hospital of Karachi

Background: Blood pressure ≥160/110 mm Hg, is indication for urgent drug therapy in obstetric women, to prevent complications and deaths. There is limited data for comparison of Labetalol to Hydralazine in emergent treatment of severe pregnancy related hypertension. Methods: Randomized controlled trial, analyzed 184 women with severe hypertension at ≥28 weeks of pregnancy or within 72 hours after delivery, from October 2012 to September 2014. Ninety-two patients in each group received intravenous Labetalol or Hydralazine boluses, repeated every 10 or 20 minutes respectively (maximum 5 boluses). Outcome measures comprised blood pressure reduction &lt;160/110 mm Hg, mean arterial pressure, severe persistent hypertension, number of boluses, maternal hypotension, tachycardia, adverse effect on fetal heart, still birth and neonatal bradycardia. Data was collected on a semi -structured proforma and analyzed through SPSS version 20. Numeric outcome measures were compared by Mann Whitney U test or independent sample t test according to normality distribution. Qualitative measures were compared by Chi square or Fisher’s exact test. Level of significance was &lt;0.05 Results: There was no significant difference in reduction of systolic, diastolic blood pressure and severe persistent hypertension, between Labetalol and Hydralazine (p&gt;0.05). Tachycardia, palpitation, headache, were significantly higher (p &lt;0.05) in Hydralazine group. Adverse effects on fetal heart were not statistically significant. Numbers of boluses were significantly lower in labetalol group. Conclusion: Labetalol is equal to hydralazine in reducing severe pregnancy related hypertension. Maternal side effect profile of Labetalol is better, and it achieves blood pressure control with reduced boluses. Keywords: Pregnancy-induced hypertension, Hypertensive crisis, Labetalol, Hydralazine, Pregnancy, Preeclampsia, Antihypertensive agent.

Prevalence of Hypertensive Disorders, Antihypertensive Therapy and Pregnancy Outcomes among Pregnant Women: A Retrospective Review of Cases at Tamale Teaching Hospital, Ghana.

Hypertensive disorders associated with pregnancy are a major health concern and a leading cause of maternal indisposition and transience. The main objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of hypertension in pregnancy as well as antihypertensive therapy and pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women at Tamale Teaching Hospital (TTH) in Ghana. This was a retrospective study conducted using data from the folders of pregnant hypertensive patients. The study was conducted at the maternity ward of TTH from 1 June 2018 to 31 May 2019. Participants were all pregnant women with a diagnosis of hypertensive disorders. The prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy was 12.5%. The most common antihypertensive medication prescribed was sustained-release oral nifedipine, which was prescribed for 548 (81.4%) participants either alone or with methyldopa, followed by oral methyldopa: 506 (75.2%), intravenous hydralazine: 94 (14.0%), intravenous labetalol: 28 (4.2%) and diuretics: 10 (1.5%). Thirty-eight (5.7%) babies died before delivery, whereas 635 (94.3%) babies were born alive. Twenty-six out of the 38 dead babies (68.4%) were babies of pregnant women with elevated BP, whereas 12 (31.6%) were babies of those with normal BP. There was a statistically significant association between BP control and delivery outcomes. The study observed adherence to antihypertensive medicines recommended by the standard treatment guidelines of Ghana for the management of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. The BPs of about two-thirds of the study participants were well controlled with the antihypertensive therapy. The majority of the study participants with well-controlled BP had positive delivery outcomes.

Comparison between adverse effects of I/v Inj Labetalol Vs Inj Hydralazine during treatment of Hypertension in pregnancy

Aim: To examine and compare side effects of intravenous Labetalol and Hydralazine in the treatment of Hypertension in pregnancy in developing countries like Pakistan. Methodology: A six-month randomised controlled experiment was undertaken at the Lady Aitchison Hospital's, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. In the study, 330 individuals with severe hypertension who were between the ages of 20 and 35 years old and had been pregnant for more than 20 weeks were included. Patients were split into two groups of equal size. Group A was administered a 20mg IV bolus of Labetalol while Group B was administered a 5-10mg IV bolus of Hydralazine. The patients were monitored during the administration period of 60 minutes and all this data was entered into a proforma. Results: Females had an average age of 27.43±3.47 years and average gestational age in females was 28.98±4.49 weeks. The systolic blood pressure in all females was 109.43 ±16.93mmHg after 60 minutes of therapy, and mean diastolic blood pressure was 77.28±14.73mmHg. A total of 135(40.9%) women suffered from maternal hypotension [27(16.36%) with Labetalol vs 108(65.43%) with Hydralazine], and 55(16.68%) females exhibited abnormal fetal heart rate [1 (0.61%) with Labetalol and 54(32.72%) with Hydralazine]. Therefore, the Hydralazine adverse effect was statistically significant (p-value = 0.000). Practical Implication: If the results of this study are applied in clinical practice in patients of pregnancy induced hypertension, female patients ca be prevented of side effects of hydralazine by using labetalol to treat hypertension in pregnancy, so it is very beneficial for patients. Conclusion: The study concludes that use of Hydralazine in females with PIH should be discouraged, whereas the use of Labetalol should be encouraged in a developing country like Pakistan. Keywords: Pregnancy Induced Hypertension (PIH),Gestational Hypertension(GH), hypotension, headache, abnormal fetal heart rate, palpitation, tachycardia, intravenous.

Oral Nifedipine and Intravenous Labetalol for Hypertensive Emergencies in Pregnancy: A Comparative Study

Oral Nifedipine and Intravenous Labetalol for Hypertensive Emergencies in Pregnancy: A Comparative Study