BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated the superior tocolytic effectiveness of nifedipine over ritodrine. Only 1 trial conducted a long-term follow-up of newborns and found no difference in psychosocial and motor functioning. In a randomised, multicentre trial, we compared the tocolytic effectiveness of nifedipine and ritodrine and included a long-term follow-up of the newborns after 2 years of age. METHODS:Patients with imminent preterm labour were randomised and received either nifedipine or ritodrine. Side-effects, tocolytic effectiveness and neonatal outcome were studied. Development of the children was studied after the age of 2 years by a parental questionnaire. RESULTS:Ninety-three patients were included. Birth was postponed for an average of 4.3 weeks in the ritodrine group and 5.0 weeks in the nifedipine group (p=0.4). Patients who received ritodrine experienced significantly more side-effects compared to patients who received nifedipine (29 versus 4%, p<0.05). No significant differences were found in either group for average birth weight, Apgar scores after 1 min, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission and neonatal complications. Parental questionnaires after 2 years had a response rate of 70%. Two-thirds of the children had developed normally in both groups. In both groups, only a few children were severely retarded (n=4). No significant differences in development were found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both nifedipine and ritodrine proved effective tocolytic drugs, however ritodrine caused significantly more maternal side-effects. Neonatal outcome and long-term development after 2 years of age were not significantly different. We favour nifedipine over ritodrine as a tocolytic drug.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated the superior tocolytic effectiveness of nifedipine over ritodrine. Only 1 trial conducted a long-term follow-up of newborns and found no difference in psychosocial and motor functioning. In a randomised, multicentre trial, we compared the tocolytic effectiveness of nifedipine and ritodrine and included a long-term follow-up of the newborns after 2 years of age. METHODS:Patients with imminent preterm labour were randomised and received either nifedipine or ritodrine. Side-effects, tocolytic effectiveness and neonatal outcome were studied. Development of the children was studied after the age of 2 years by a parental questionnaire. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included. Birth was postponed for an average of 4.3 weeks in the ritodrine group and 5.0 weeks in the nifedipine group (p=0.4). Patients who received ritodrine experienced significantly more side-effects compared to patients who received nifedipine (29 versus 4%, p<0.05). No significant differences were found in either group for average birth weight, Apgar scores after 1 min, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission and neonatal complications. Parental questionnaires after 2 years had a response rate of 70%. Two-thirds of the children had developed normally in both groups. In both groups, only a few children were severely retarded (n=4). No significant differences in development were found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both nifedipine and ritodrine proved effective tocolytic drugs, however ritodrine caused significantly more maternal side-effects. Neonatal outcome and long-term development after 2 years of age were not significantly different. We favour nifedipine over ritodrine as a tocolytic drug.
Authors: Vicki Flenady; Aleena M Wojcieszek; Dimitri N M Papatsonis; Owen M Stock; Linda Murray; Luke A Jardine; Bruno Carbonne Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-06-05
Authors: Amie Wilson; Victoria A Hodgetts-Morton; Ella J Marson; Alexandra D Markland; Eva Larkai; Argyro Papadopoulou; Arri Coomarasamy; Aurelio Tobias; Doris Chou; Olufemi T Oladapo; Malcolm J Price; Katie Morris; Ioannis D Gallos Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-10
Authors: Tms van Winden; J Klumper; C E Kleinrouweler; M A Tichelaar; C A Naaktgeboren; T A Nijman; A L van Baar; A G van Wassenaer-Leemhuis; T J Roseboom; J Van't Hooft; C Roos; B W Mol; E Pajkrt; M A Oudijk Journal: BJOG Date: 2020-03-29 Impact factor: 6.531