Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background and Objective 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 (C 17 H 18 N 2 O 6 ), labetalol (C 19 H 24 N 2 O 3 ), and hydralazine (C 8 H 8 N 4 ) 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). Conclusion and Global Health Implications 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.
Kaur et al. (2024) studied this question.