Table 6.2bReported results of treatment for hypertension for mixed populations – comparison between two interventions (reported as RRs or ORs with 95% CIs)

StudySevere hypertensionPre-eclampsia/proteinuriaEclampsia/HELLP syndromeMaternal deathAdmission to HDU/ICUPerinatal mortalitySGAPreterm birthAdmission to NICU
Labetalol versus methyldopa
Redman et al. (1977)79
[EL = 1−]
UK and Ireland
19/39 versus 10/35
RR 1.71 (0.92 to 3.15)
13/38 versus 15/34
RR 0.78 (0.43 to 1.39)
19/39 versus 16/35
RR 1.07 (0.66 to 1.73)
Lamming et al. (1980)111
[EL = 1−]
UK
0/14 versus 2/12
RR 0.17 (0.01 to 3.29)
5/14 versus 9/12
RR 0.48 (0.22 to 1.03)
0/14 versus 0/12
not estimable
Plouin et al. (1988)112
[EL = 1−]
France
8/91 versus 8/85
RR 0.93 (0.37 to 2.38)
44/91 versus 46/85
RR 0.89 (0.67 to 1.19)
1/91 versus 4/85
RR 0.23 (0.03 to 2.05)
11/91 versus 12/81
RR 0.82 (0.38 to 1.75)
22/91 versus 21/85
RR 0.98 (0.58 to 1.65)
34/91 versus 29/81
RR 1.04 (0.70 to 1.55)
Hydralazine versus hydralazine plus propranolol or pindolol
Paran et al. (1995)110
[EL = 1−]
Israel
0/36 versus 0/15
not estimable
0/36 versus 0/15
not estimable
13/36 versus 4/15
RR 1.35 (0.53 to 3.48)
10/36 versus 3/15
RR 1.39 (0.44 to 4.35)
Labetalol versus hydralazine
Hjertberg et al. (1993)113
[EL = 1−]
Sweden
9/9 versus 7/11
RR 1.52 (0.96 to 2.41)
0/9 versus 1/11
RR 0.40 (0.02 to 8.78)
3/9 versus 8/11
RR 0.46 (0.17 to 1.24)
Beta-blocker versus beta-blocker
Tuimala et al. (1988)116 (Atenolol versus pindolol)
[EL = 1−]
Finland
3/24 versus 4/27
RR 0.84 (0.21 to 3.40)
Beta-blocker versus methyldopa
Fidler et al. (1983)117 (Oxprenolol)
[EL = 1−]
UK
7/50 versus 7/50
RR 1.00 (0.38 to 2.64)
39/48 versus 36/48
RR 1.08 (0.88 to 1.34)
1/50 versus 1/50
RR 1.00 (0.06 to 15.55)
Gallery et al. (1979)118,119 (Oxprenolol)
[EL = 1−]
Australia
10/96 versus 10/97
RR 0.91 (0.40 to 2.07)
10/96 versus 10/87
RR 0.91 (0.40 to 2.07)
1/96 versus 3/87
RR 0.30 (0.03 versus 2.85)
15/95 versus 19/87
RR 0.72 (0.39 to 1.33)
Oumachigui et al. (1992)120 (Metoprolol)
[EL = 1−]
India
1/16 versus 3/15
RR 0.31 (0.04 to 2.68)
0/15 versus 3/14
RR 0.13 (0.01 to 2.38)
Livingstone et al. (1983)121 (Propranolol)
[EL = 1−]
Australia
1/14 versus 0/14
RR 3.00 (0.13 to 67.91)
6/14 versus 4/14
RR 1.50 (0.54 to 4.18)
0/14 versus 0/14
not estimable
6/14 versus 4/14
RR 1.50 (0.54 to 4.18)
Ellenbogen et al. (1986)122 (Pindolol)
[EL = 1−]
Israel
4/16 versus 9/16
RR 0.44 (0.17 to 1.15)
0/16 versus 0/16
not estimable
1/16 versus 1/16
RR 1.00 (0.07 to 14.64)
Beta-blocker versus calcium-channel blocker nicardipine
Jannet et al. (1994)123 (Metoprolol)
[EL = 1−]
France
15/50 versus 7/50
RR 2.14 (0.96 to 4.80)
8/50 versus 3/50
RR 2.67 (0.75 to 9.47)
1/50 versus 1/50
RR 1.00 (0.06 to 15.55)
6/50 versus 4/50
RR 1.50 (0.45 to 4.99)
Calcium-channel blocker verapamil versus beta-blocker
Marlettini et al. (1990)125 (Pindolol)
[EL = 1−]
Italy
0/22 versus 0/22
not estimable
Marlettini et al. (1990)125 (Atenolol)
[EL = 1−]
Italy
0/25 versus 0/25
not estimable
Calcium-channel blocker versus methyldopa
Jayawardana et al. (1994)124 (Nifedipine)
[EL = 1−]
40/63 versus 24/63
RR 1.67 (1.16 to 2.40)a
1/63 versus 1/63
RR 1.00 (0.06 to 15.64)b

HDU = high-dependency unit; HELLP = haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelet count; ICU = intensive care unit; NICU = neonatal intensive care unit; SGA = small for gestational age

a

The outcome reported was need for treatment for acute hypertension

b

The outcome reported was HELLP syndrome

From: 6, Management of pregnancy with gestational hypertension

Cover of Hypertension in Pregnancy
Hypertension in Pregnancy: The Management of Hypertensive Disorders During Pregnancy.
NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 107.
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK).
London: RCOG Press; 2010 Aug.
Copyright © 2011, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK [www.cla.co.uk]. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to the publisher at the UK address printed on this page.

The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant laws and regulations and therefore for general use.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.