Key result
Intravenous urapidil and dihydralazine both achieved effective blood pressure control (<150/100 mmHg) in 100% of patients with pre-eclampsia, though urapidil resulted in a lower maternal heart rate.
Why the study?
Does intravenous urapidil improve blood pressure control and reduce side effects compared to dihydralazine in women with pre-eclampsia and hypertension?
Population
26 white women with pre-eclampsia and hypertension in pregnancy
Comparison
Urapidil (intravenous) vs Dihydralazine (intravenous)
Design
RCT, Randomized, Not blinded (open-label)
Authors
Loading...
Supports urapidil as a viable alternative to dihydralazine for severe hypertension in pre-eclampsia; extends evidence for agents minimizing reflex tachycardia.
RCT (n=26)
Open-label
randomized
Does intravenous urapidil improve blood pressure control and reduce side effects compared to dihydralazine in women with pre-eclampsia and hypertension?
Absolute Event Rate: 100% vs 100%
Intravenous urapidil is as effective as dihydralazine for controlling severe hypertension in pre-eclampsia, with potentially fewer hemodynamic side effects such as reflex tachycardia.
Wacker et al. (1998) conducted an RCT in pre-eclampsia and hypertension in pregnancy (n=26). Urapidil vs. Dihydralazine was evaluated on Effective prolonged control of blood pressure (values below 150/100 mmHg). Intravenous urapidil and dihydralazine both achieved effective blood pressure control (<150/100 mmHg) in 100% of patients with pre-eclampsia, though urapidil resulted in a lower maternal heart rate.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: