Adithya D Bhat, Paige M Keasler, Lavanya Kolluru, Michael M Dombrowski, Arvind Palanisamy, Preet Mohinder Singh
Journal: Pregnancy hypertension 2024;34():74-82
PMID: 37857042
BACKGROUND
Consensus on the relative efficacy of available antihypertensive agents used in pregnancy is lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To compare treatment success with antihypertensives and categorize by route of administration.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched without date restriction.
DATA COLLECTION
Peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacologic agents used to treat hypertension in parturients were included. Evaluated treatment groups included IV-labetalol (BBIV), IV-hydralazine (DIV), oral-nifedipine (CCBPO), sublingual nifedipine (CCBSL), IV-calcium channel blocker (nonspecific)(CCBIV), IV-nitroglycerine (NTG), epoprostenol infusion (PRO), IV-ketanserin (5HT2B), IV-diazoxide (BZO), oral-nifedipine + methyldopa (CCBAG), oral-methyl-dopa (AAG), and oral prazosin (ABPO).
ANALYSIS
Seventy-four studies (8324 patients) were eligible post PRISMA guidelines screening. Results were pooled using a Bayesian-approach for success of treatment (study defined target blood pressure), time to achieve target pressure, and neonatal intensive-care admissions.
RESULTS
Treatment success (primary outcome, 55 trials with 5518 patients) was analyzed. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was categorized for 13 drugs, CCBPO (0.84) followed by CCBSL (0.78) were most likely to be effective in achieving target blood pressure. After sub-grouping by presence/absence of preeclampsia, CCB-PO ranked highest for both [(0.82) vs. (0.77), respectively]. Serotonin antagonists (0.99) and nitroglycerin (0.88) ranked highest for time to target pressure. NICU admissions were lowest for alpha-2 agonists (0.89), followed by BB PO (0.82) and hydralazine IV (0.49).
CONCLUSION
Oral calcium-channel blockers ranked highest for treatment success. Ketanserin achieved target blood pressure fastest, warranting additional research. The results should be interpreted with caution as SUCRA values may not indicate whether the differences between interventions have clinically meaningful effect sizes.
Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence
We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.