Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

[Nifedipine or nicardipine in management of threatened preterm delivery: an observational population-based study].

Abstract : OBJECTIVE: For the first line tocolysis, calcium channel blockers (CCB)--oral nifedipine (Adalate®) or intravenous nicardipine (Loxen®)--are frequently used in France. No study compared nifedipine and nicardipine in management of threatened preterm delivery. From data of a French observational study, we compared factors associated with the use of nifedipine and nicardipine. Efficacy and tolerance of the two treatments were also compared. METHODS: It was a secondary analysis of EVAPRIMA study, a practice survey describing management of threatened preterm delivery in 107 French maternity units. Only women who received calcium channel blockers in their first line tocolytic therapy were included. We studied obstetrical factors associated with the choice of nifedipine or nicardipine. We also analyzed factors associated with a delivery within seven days following admission using univariate and multivariate analysis. Adverse secondary effects were compared between women who received nifedipine or nicardipine. RESULTS: Three hundred and four women received calcium channel blockers for their first line tocolytic therapy, in 73 maternity units: 93 (30.6%) women received oral nifedipine and 211 (69.4%) intravenous nicardipine. The same CCB was always prescribed in 69 maternity units. Admission after in utero transfer was less frequent among women who received nifedipine (6.5% versus 17.1%, P=0.01). Premature rupture of the membranes was also less frequent among women who received nifedipine (4.3% versus 13.7%, P=0.02), in comparison with women who received nicardipine. Median duration between admission for threatened preterm labor and delivery was longer when nifedipine was used (44 days versus 36 days, P=0.04). After adjustment on obstetrical factors, the risk to have a delivery within 7 days following admission was not significantly different between nifedipine and nicardipine groups (adjusted OR=0.5 [0.2-1.2]). Among women who received nifedipine only two cases (2.1%) of adverse event were reported with only one case needing a switch of treatment. Thirteen (6.2%) cases of adverse event were reported among women who received nicardipine (P=0.16); in three cases it motivated a switch. However, due to bias and limits inherent in such studies, our results should be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSION: Nicardipine is the first choice for French obstetricians in management of severe threatened preterm delivery. However, intravenous nicardipine does not increase gestational duration in comparison with oral nifedipine.
Document type :
Journal articles
Complete list of metadatas

Cited literature [31 references]  Display  Hide  Download

https://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-00614243
Contributor : Nayla Debs <>
Submitted on : Wednesday, August 10, 2011 - 11:39:11 AM
Last modification on : Wednesday, September 16, 2020 - 5:04:16 PM
Long-term archiving on: : Friday, November 11, 2011 - 2:20:42 AM

Files

ICC_Evaprima_rev_def.pdf
Files produced by the author(s)

Identifiers

Citation

Camille Le Ray, Françoise Maillard, Bruno Carbonne, Eric Verspyck, Dominique Cabrol, et al.. [Nifedipine or nicardipine in management of threatened preterm delivery: an observational population-based study].. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction, Elsevier Masson, 2010, 39 (6), pp.490-7. ⟨10.1016/j.jgyn.2010.04.004⟩. ⟨inserm-00614243⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

640

Files downloads

1563