Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L Duley

Publications and source records attributed to L Duley.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2001

Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Mild-moderate hypertension during pregnancy is common. Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent progression to more severe disease, and thereby improve outcome. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatments for women with mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant trials were identified in the register of trials maintained by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. In addition, the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched. Date of last search: October 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy, defined whenever possible as systolic blood pressure 140-169 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure 90-109 mmHg. Comparisons were of one or more antihypertensive drug(s) with placebo, with no antihypertensive drug, or with another antihypertensive drug, and where treatment was planned to continue for at least seven days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, this review includes 40 studies (3797 women), 24 of which compared an antihypertensive drug with placebo/no antihypertensive drug (2815 women). There is a halving in the risk of developing severe hypertension associated with the use of antihypertensive drug(s) [17 trials, 2155 women; relative risk (RR) 0.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.64); risk difference (RD) -0.09 (-0.12 to -0.06); number needed to treat (NNT) 12 (9 to 17)] but little evidence of a difference in the risk of pre-eclampsia [19 trials, 2402 women; RR 0.99 (0.84 to 1.18)]. Similarly, there is no clear effect on the risk of the baby dying [23 trials, 2727 women; RR 0.71(0.46 to 1.09)], preterm birth [12 trials, 1738 women; RR 0.98 (0.85 to 1.13)], or small for gestational age babies [17 trials, 2159 women; RR 1.13 (0.91 to 1.42)]. There were no clear differences in any other outcomes. Seventeen trials (1182 women) compared one antihypertensive drug with another. There is no clear difference between any of these drugs in the risk of developing severe hypertension, and proteinuria/pre-eclampsia. Other antihypertensive agents seem better than methyldopa for reducing the risk of the baby dying [14 trials, 1010 subjects, RR 0.49 (0.24 to 0.99); RD -0.02 (-0.04 to 0.00); NNT 45 (22 to 1341)]. Other outcomes were only reported by a small proportion of studies, and there were no clear differences. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: It remains unclear whether antihypertensive drug therapy for mild-moderate hypertension during pregnancy is worthwhile.

Antihypertensive Agents↗
PubMed2001

Magnesium sulphate versus lytic cocktail for eclampsia.

BACKGROUND: Eclampsia, the occurrence of a seizure in association with pre-eclampsia, is a rare but serious complication of pregnancy. A number of different anticonvulsants are used to control eclamptic fits and to prevent further seizures. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to compare the effects of magnesium sulphate with those of lytic cocktail when used for the care of women with eclampsia. SEARCH STRATEGY: The register of trials held by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group was searched for relevant trials. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000 was also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials recruiting women with eclampsia, and comparing any use of magnesium sulphate with any use of lytic cocktail. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from each report without any blinding of the results or of the treatments which women received. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials with 199 women were included in the review. These were both small and of average quality. Magnesium sulphate was better than lytic cocktail at preventing further fits (relative risk (RR) 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.24; risk difference (RD) 0.43, 95% CI -0.53, -0.34; number needed to treat (NNT) 3, 95% CI 2-3) and was associated with less respiratory depression (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02-0.91). Magnesium sulphate was also associated with fewer maternal deaths than lytic cocktail, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.04-1.43). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Magnesium sulphate is the anticonvulsant of choice for women with eclampsia. Lytic cocktail should be abandoned.

Anticonvulsants↗
PubMed2000

Anticonvulsants for women with pre-eclampsia.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is a relatively common complication of pregnancy. Anticonvulsants are used in the belief they help prevent eclamptic fits and subsequent poor outcomes for mother and infant. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of anticonvulsants for women with pre-eclampsia on the women and their children. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, 1999 Issue 3. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing anticonvulsants with placebo or no anticonvulsants or comparisons of different anticonvulsants in women with pre-eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies were included. Comparing magnesium sulphate with placebo/no anticonvulsant the relative risk (RR) of eclampsia was 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 1.02. There was no significant difference detected in the risk of caesarean section (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Magnesium sulphate appeared to be better than phenytoin at reducing the risk of eclampsia (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.84). However there was an increased risk of caesarean section with magnesium sulphate compared to phenytoin (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05 to 1. 41). No statistically significant differences were reported for any other clinically important outcomes. Studies comparing magnesium sulphate and diazepam were too small for any reliable conclusions. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to establish the benefits and hazards of anticonvulsants for women with pre-eclampsia. If an anticonvulsant is used, magnesium sulphate appears to be the best choice.

Anticonvulsants↗
PubMed2000

Magnesium sulphate versus diazepam for eclampsia.

BACKGROUND: A number of different anticonvulsants are used to control eclamptic fits and to prevent future seizures. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of magnesium sulphate compared with diazepam when used for the care of women with eclampsia. Magnesium sulphate is compared with phenytoin and with lytic cocktail (in preparation) in other Cochrane reviews. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth trials register and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, 1999 Issue 3. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing magnesium sulphate (intravenous or intramuscular administration) with diazepam for women with a clinical diagnosis of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and data extraction was done by the two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials involving 1236 women were included. Most of these trials were of good quality. Magnesium sulphate was associated with a substantial reduction in the recurrence of convulsions, when compared to diazepam (relative risk 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.58). Maternal mortality was also reduced, although this difference was borderline for statistical significance (relative risk 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-1.00). There are no differences in any other measures of outcome, except for fewer Apgar scores <7 at five minutes (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.94) and in length of stay in SCBU >7 days (relative risk 0. 66, 95% CI 0.46-0.95) associated with magnesium sulphate. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Magnesium sulphate appears to be substantially more effective than diazepam for treatment of eclampsia.

Anticonvulsants↗
PubMed2000

Antiplatelet agents for preventing and treating pre-eclampsia.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia is associated with deficient intravascular production of prostacyclin, a vasodilator, and excessive production of thromboxane, a platelet-derived vasoconstrictor and stimulant of platelet aggregation. These observations led to the hypotheses that antiplatelet agents, and low dose aspirin in particular, might prevent or delay the development of pre-eclampsia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antiplatelet agents when given to women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia, and to those with established pre-eclampsia. SEARCH STRATEGY: This review drew on the search strategy developed for the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group as a whole. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was also searched, The Cochrane Library 1999 Issue 1, Embase was searched from 1994-1999 and hand searches were performed of the congress proceedings of the International and European Societies for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials comparing antiplatelet agents with either placebo or no antiplatelet agent during pregnancy. Quasi random study designs were excluded. Participants were pregnant women considered to be at risk of developing pre-eclampsia, and those with pre-eclampsia before delivery. Women treated postpartum were excluded. Interventions were any comparisons of an antiplatelet agent (such as low dose aspirin or dipyridamole) with either placebo or no antiplatelet agent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessment of trials for inclusion in the review and extraction of data was performed independently and unblinded by two reviewers. Data were entered into the Review Manager software and double checked. MAIN RESULTS: Forty two trials involving over 32,000 women were included in this review, with 30,563 women in the prevention trials. There is a 15% reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia associated with the use of antiplatelet agents [32 trials with 29,331 women; relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (0.78, 0.92); Number needed to treat (NNT) 89, (59, 167)]. This reduction is regardless of risk status at trial entry or whether a placebo was used, and irrespective of the dose of asprin or gestation at randomisation. Twenty three trials (28,268 women) reported preterm delivery. There is a small (8%) reduction in the risk of delivery before 37 completed weeks [RR 0.92, (0.88, 0.97); NNT 72 (44, 200)]. Baby deaths were reported in 30 trials (30,093 women). Overall there is a 14% reduction in baby deaths in the antiplatelet group [RR 0.86, (0. 75, 0.98); NNT 250 (125, >10000)]. Small for gestational age babies were reported in 25 trials (20,349 women), with no overall difference between the groups, RR 0.92, (0.84, 1.01). There were no significant differences between treatment and control groups in any other measures of outcome. Five trials compared antiplatelet agents with placebo or no antiplatelet agent for the treatment of pre-eclampsia. There are insufficient data for any firm conclusions about the possible effects of these agents when used for treatment of pre-eclampsia. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet agents, in this review largely low dose aspirin, have small-moderate benefits when used for prevention of pre-eclampsia. Further information is required to assess which women are most likely to benefit, when treatment should be started, and at what dose.

Aspirin↗
PubMed2000

Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems.

BACKGROUND: Calcium supplementation may prevent high blood pressure through a number of mechanisms and may help to prevent preterm labour. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of calcium supplementation during pregnancy on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and related maternal and child adverse outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and we contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing at least one gram daily of calcium during pregnancy compared to placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligibility and trial quality were assessed. Data extraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies were included, all of good quality. There was a modest reduction in high blood pressure with calcium supplementation (relative risk 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.88). The effect was greatest for women at high risk of hypertension (relative risk 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.57) and those with low baseline dietary calcium (relative risk 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.62). There was also a modest reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia with calcium supplementation (relative risk 0. 72, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.86). The effect was greatest for women at high risk of hypertension (relative risk 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.43) and those with low baseline calcium intake (relative risk 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.49). There was no overall effect on the risk of preterm delivery, although there was a reduction in risk amongst women at high risk of hypertension (relative risk 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0. 78). There was no evidence of any effect of calcium supplementation on stillbirth or death before discharge from hospital. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Calcium supplementation appears to be beneficial for women at high risk of gestational hypertension and in communities with low dietary calcium intake. Optimum dosage requires further investigation.

Calcium↗
PubMed2000

Drugs for rapid treatment of very high blood pressure during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Very high blood pressure during pregnancy poses a serious threat to women and their fetuses. The use of drugs to lower blood pressure may reduce this risk. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare different antihypertensive drugs used for rapid treatment of severe hypertension during pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. SELECTION CRITERIA STUDIES: All randomised trials. Quasi random designs were excluded. PARTICIPANTS: Women with severe hypertension during pregnancy. Women postpartum at trial entry were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Comparisons of one antihypertensive agent with another. OUTCOMES: For the women: blood pressure control, eclampsia, serious maternal morbidity (such as kidney failure and liver failure), Caesarean section, and use of health service resources (such as admission to hospital or intensive care unit). For the baby: death, serious neonatal morbidity, infant and child development, and use of health service resources (such as admission to a special care nursery). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers to assess eligibility and describe the trial characteristics, and by one reviewer for the meta-analyses. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. There was no blinding of authorship or results. Whenever possible, unpublished data were sought from investigators. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen of the 14 trials included in this review were small (range 19-627 women). Of the eight comparisons, five included hydralazine. Diazoxide given as 75mg bolus injections appears to be associated with profound hypotension requiring treatment, and ketanserin is less effective than hydralazine at reducing blood pressure. There is no other evidence that any one of the other antihypertensive agents is better than another for women with severe hypertension during pregnancy. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Until better evidence is available, the choice of antihypertensive should depend on the experience and familiarity of an individual clinician with a particular drug, and on what is known about adverse maternal and fetal side-effects. Exceptions are diazoxide and ketanserin, which are probably not good choices.

Antihypertensive Agents↗
PubMed2000

Reduced salt intake compared to normal dietary salt, or high intake, in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: In the past women have been advised that lowering their salt intake might reduce their risk of pre-eclampsia. Although this practice has largely ceased, it remains important to assess the evidence about possible effects of advice to alter dietary salt intake during pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of dietary advice to alter salt intake compared to continuing a normal diet, on the risk of pre-eclampsia and its consequences. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the register of trials maintained and updated by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register Disc Issue 4, 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised trials of advice to either reduce or to increase dietary salt during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All data were extracted independently by both reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials were included, with 603 women. They compared advice about a low salt diet with no dietary advice. The confidence intervals for all of the outcomes reported were wide, and cross the no effect line. This includes pre-eclampsia (relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 2.66). Even when taken together, these trials are insufficient to provide reliable information about the effects of advice on salt restriction during normal pregnancy. None of the trials included women with pre-eclampsia, so this review provides no reliable information about changes in salt intake for treatment of pre-eclampsia. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Salt consumption during pregnancy should remain a matter of personal preference.

Female↗
PubMed2000

Plasma volume expansion for treatment of women with pre-eclampsia.

BACKGROUND: Plasma volume is reduced amongst women with pre-eclampsia. This association has led to the suggestion that expanding the plasma volume might improve maternal and uteroplacental circulation, and so potentially improve outcome for both the woman and her baby. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the effects of plasma volume expansion for the treatment of women with pre-eclampsia. SEARCH STRATEGY: The register of trials maintained by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register Issue 1 1999 were searched for trials meeting the selection criteria. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials were included. Quasi-random designs were excluded. Participants were women with hypertension during pregnancy, with or without proteinuria. Women who were postpartum at trial entry were excluded. Interventions were any comparison of plasma volume expansion with no expansion, or of one plasma volume expander with another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. There was no blinding of authorship or results. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 61 women were included in this review. All compared a colloid solution with no plasma volume expansion. For every outcome reported, the confidence intervals are very wide and cross the no effect line. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence for any reliable estimates of the effects of plasma volume expansion for women with pre-eclampsia.

Female↗
PubMed2000

Oral beta-blockers for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a common complication of pregnancy. Antihypertensive drugs are widely used in the belief these will improve outcome for both the woman (such as decreasing the risk of stroke or eclampsia) and her baby (such as decreasing the risk of preterm birth and its complications). Beta-blockers are a popular choice of antihypertensive agent during pregnancy; other choices include methyldopa and calcium channel blockers. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to assess whether oral beta-blockers are overall better than placebo, or no beta-blocker, for women with mild-moderate hypertension during pregnancy, and to assess whether oral beta-blockers have any advantages over other antihypertensive agents for women with mild-moderate hypertension during pregnancy. Both maternal outcomes (e.g., the incidence of severe hypertension) and perinatal outcomes (e.g., mortality) were of interest. SEARCH STRATEGY: Register of trials maintained by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, MEDLINE 1966-97, bibliographies of retrieved papers, personal files. Date of last search: June 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials comparing beta-blockers with (i) placebo or no therapy, or (ii) other antihypertensive agents, for women with mild-moderate pregnancy hypertension (i.e., blood pressure under 170 mm Hg systolic, or 110 mm Hg diastolic). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All data were extracted independently by two investigators, who were not blinded to outcome or other trial characteristics. Whenever possible, missing data were obtained by personal communication with authors. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. The overview was divided into two comparisons: (i) beta-blockers versus placebo or no therapy, and (ii) beta-blockers versus other antihypertensives. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials, involving just under 2400 women, are included in this review. Fourteen trials (1516 women) compared beta-blockers with placebo/no beta blocker. Oral beta-blockers decrease the risk of severe hypertension (relative risk (RR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26-0.53) and the need for additional antihypertensive drugs (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.62). There are insufficient data for any conclusions about the effect on perinatal mortality or preterm delivery. Beta-blockers seem to be associated with an increase in small for gestational age infants (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.79). Maternal hospital admission may be decreased, neonatal bradycardia increased and respiratory distress syndrome decreased, but these outcomes are only reported in a very small proportion of trials. Eleven trials (787 women) compared beta-blockers with methyldopa. Beta-blockers appear to be no more effective and probably equally as safe (from maternal and perinatal perspectives) as methyldopa. Single small trials have compared beta-blockers with hydralazine and with nicardipine. It is unusual for women to change drugs due to side effects. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in control of maternal blood pressure with use of beta-blockers would be worthwhile only if it were reflected in other more substantive benefits for the mother and/or baby, and none have yet been clearly demonstrated. The effect of beta-blockers on perinatal outcome is uncertain, given that the worrying trend to an increase in small for gestational age infants is partly dependent on one small outlying trial. Large, randomised controlled trials are needed to determine whether antihypertensive therapy in general (rather than beta-blocker therapy specifically) results in benefits that outweigh the risks for treatment of mild-moderate pregnancy hypertension. If so, then it would be appropriate to look at which antihypertensive is best. Beta-blockers would remain a candidate class of agents.

Administration, Oral↗