COMPARISON OF ORAL NIFEDIPINE WITH INTRAVENOUS HYDRALAZINE FOR ACUTE HYPERTENSIVE EMERGENCIES OF PREGNANCY
Article Sidebar
Published:
Nov 26, 2016
Keywords:
Blood pressure, Gestational hypertension, Hydralazine, Nifedifine
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To compare oral nifedipine with intravenous hydralazine in their
rapidity to control hypertensive emergencies of pregnancy.
Methodology: It was a comparative study, done in Gynae C unit, Lady Reading
Hospital, Peshawar. The study included hundred patients with severe gestational
hypertension ≥160/110 mmHg, randomly assigned to two groups
(one given intravenous hydralazine and the other oral nifedipine) to achieve a
blood pressure (BP) of ≤150/100 mmHg. BP was measured every 15 minutes
for one hour. Side effects were noted in terms of maternal headache and hypotension
and fetal heart rate.
Results: Both drugs controlled BP in the given time period but hydralazine
was more efficacious in terms of time and doses. The time required by hydralazine
was 41.10±20.286 minutes as compared to nifidipine was 57.90±21.855
with a significant p value of 0.000. Few doses were required to control BP in
case of hydralazine 2.74±1.35 as compared to nifidipine which was 3.86±1.45
with a significant "˜p' value of 0.000.
Conclusion: The use of either hydralazine or nifidipine controlled BP in the
target time period but hydralazine was more efficacious.
rapidity to control hypertensive emergencies of pregnancy.
Methodology: It was a comparative study, done in Gynae C unit, Lady Reading
Hospital, Peshawar. The study included hundred patients with severe gestational
hypertension ≥160/110 mmHg, randomly assigned to two groups
(one given intravenous hydralazine and the other oral nifedipine) to achieve a
blood pressure (BP) of ≤150/100 mmHg. BP was measured every 15 minutes
for one hour. Side effects were noted in terms of maternal headache and hypotension
and fetal heart rate.
Results: Both drugs controlled BP in the given time period but hydralazine
was more efficacious in terms of time and doses. The time required by hydralazine
was 41.10±20.286 minutes as compared to nifidipine was 57.90±21.855
with a significant p value of 0.000. Few doses were required to control BP in
case of hydralazine 2.74±1.35 as compared to nifidipine which was 3.86±1.45
with a significant "˜p' value of 0.000.
Conclusion: The use of either hydralazine or nifidipine controlled BP in the
target time period but hydralazine was more efficacious.
Article Details
How to Cite
1.
Sabir S, Yasmin S, Abbas G. COMPARISON OF ORAL NIFEDIPINE WITH INTRAVENOUS HYDRALAZINE FOR ACUTE HYPERTENSIVE EMERGENCIES OF PREGNANCY. J Postgrad Med Inst [Internet]. 2016 Nov. 26 [cited 2024 Dec. 22];30(4). Available from: https://jpmi.org.pk/index.php/jpmi/article/view/1902
Issue
Section
Original Article
Work published in JPMI is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.