OBJECTIVE: To review outcomes in randomised controlled trials comparing hydralazine against other antihypertensives for severe hypertension in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (published between 1966 and September 2002) of short acting antihypertensives for severe hypertension in pregnancy. Independent data abstraction by two reviewers. Data were entered into RevMan software for analysis (fixed effects model, relative risk and 95% confidence interval); in a secondary analysis, risk difference was also calculated. RESULTS: Of 21 trials (893 women), eight compared hydralazine with nifedipine and five with labetalol. Hydralazine was associated with a trend towards less persistent severe hypertension than labetalol (relative risk 0.29 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 1.04); two trials), but more severe hypertension than nifedipine or isradipine (1.41 (0.95 to 2.09); four trials); there was significant heterogeneity in outcome between trials and differences in methodological quality. Hydralazine was associated with more maternal hypotension (3.29 (1.50 to 7.23); 13 trials); more caesarean sections (1.30 (1.08 to 1.59); 14 trials); more placental abruption (4.17 (1.19 to 14.28); five trials); more maternal oliguria (4.00 (1.22 to 12.50); three trials); more adverse effects on fetal heart rate (2.04 (1.32 to 3.16); 12 trials); and more low Apgar scores at one minute (2.70 (1.27 to 5.88); three trials). For all but Apgar scores, analysis by risk difference showed heterogeneity between trials. Hydralazine was associated with more maternal side effects (1.50 (1.16 to 1.94); 12 trials) and with less neonatal bradycardia than labetalol (risk difference -0.24 (-0.42 to -0.06); three trials). CONCLUSIONS: The results are not robust enough to guide clinical practice, but they do not support use of hydralazine as first line for treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. Adequately powered clinical trials are needed, with a comparison of labetalol and nifedipine showing the most promise.
OBJECTIVE: To review outcomes in randomised controlled trials comparing hydralazine against other antihypertensives for severe hypertension in pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (published between 1966 and September 2002) of short acting antihypertensives for severe hypertension in pregnancy. Independent data abstraction by two reviewers. Data were entered into RevMan software for analysis (fixed effects model, relative risk and 95% confidence interval); in a secondary analysis, risk difference was also calculated. RESULTS: Of 21 trials (893 women), eight compared hydralazine with nifedipine and five with labetalol. Hydralazine was associated with a trend towards less persistent severe hypertension than labetalol (relative risk 0.29 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 1.04); two trials), but more severe hypertension than nifedipine or isradipine (1.41 (0.95 to 2.09); four trials); there was significant heterogeneity in outcome between trials and differences in methodological quality. Hydralazine was associated with more maternal hypotension (3.29 (1.50 to 7.23); 13 trials); more caesarean sections (1.30 (1.08 to 1.59); 14 trials); more placental abruption (4.17 (1.19 to 14.28); five trials); more maternal oliguria (4.00 (1.22 to 12.50); three trials); more adverse effects on fetal heart rate (2.04 (1.32 to 3.16); 12 trials); and more low Apgar scores at one minute (2.70 (1.27 to 5.88); three trials). For all but Apgar scores, analysis by risk difference showed heterogeneity between trials. Hydralazine was associated with more maternal side effects (1.50 (1.16 to 1.94); 12 trials) and with less neonatal bradycardia than labetalol (risk difference -0.24 (-0.42 to -0.06); three trials). CONCLUSIONS: The results are not robust enough to guide clinical practice, but they do not support use of hydralazine as first line for treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. Adequately powered clinical trials are needed, with a comparison of labetalol and nifedipine showing the most promise.
Authors: M A Brown; W M Hague; J Higgins; S Lowe; L McCowan; J Oats; M J Peek; J A Rowan; B N Walters Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Douglas Altman; Guillermo Carroli; Lelia Duley; Barbara Farrell; Jack Moodley; James Neilson; David Smith Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-06-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Whitney A Booker; Zainab Siddiq; Yongmei Huang; Cande V Ananth; Jason D Wright; Kirsten L Cleary; Mary E DʼAlton; Alexander M Friedman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Vera Regitz-Zagrosek; Christa Gohlke-Bärwolf; Annette Geibel-Zehender; Markus Haass; Harald Kaemmerer; Irmtraut Kruck; Christoph Nienaber Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: H Stepan; S Kuse-Föhl; W Klockenbusch; W Rath; B Schauf; T Walther; D Schlembach Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.915