***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE Our purpose was to study the effects of isradipine , a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker , on mother and fetus in the treatment of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy . STUDY DESIGN The investigation was performed as a two-group , parallel , double-blind multicenter study of isradipine versus placebo .  Fifty-four women were r and omized to treatment with isradipine slow-release capsules given orally 5 mg twice a day and 57 to a  placebo group . RESULTS Isradipine lowered the maternal mean arterial blood pressure effectively in women with nonproteinuric hypertension but did not do so in women with proteinuria at recruitment or appearing during treatment . Blood flow in the umbilical artery and maternal renal and liver function were not influenced by treatment . Isradipine had few side effects and was well tolerated . CONCLUSION Calcium channel blockade with isradipine is effective for treatment of nonproteinuric hypertension but not in preeclampsia The effect of nifedipine ( Adalat ; Bayer-Miles)--a calcium channel blocker , which has a well-established place in nonobstetric hypertension -- was compared with dihydralazine in 33 primigravidas with severe hypertension of pregnancy . Patients with a diastolic blood pressure greater than 110 mmHg before drug administration were r and omly assigned to treatment with either nifedipine or dihydralazine . Both drugs were found to be equally efficacious .  Nifedipine , however , showed an earlier onset of action in lowering systolic blood pressure and had the advantage of oral administration The objective was to compare the fetal and maternal effects between parenteral hydralazine and sublingual nifedipine used like antihypertensive drugs in the management of severe preeclampsia .  Study design was prospect i ve , comparative , longitudinal , r and omized clinical trial . It was carried out at Centro Medico Nacional IMSS Torreon , Coah . Gynecology and Obstetrics Department . The patients were women in the last trimester of pregnancy with severe preeclampsia were r and omized to receive parenteral hydralazine or sublingual nifedipine as antihypertensive drugs . The only difference observed in this study was the Apgar of neonates whose mothers received hydralazine , that was significatively lesser than the Apgar of neonates whose mothers received nifedipine . Both medicaments are a good alternative as antihypertensive drugs in severe preeclampsia . Neonates whose mothers received Nifedipine had a higher Apgar Objective To determine whether nifedipine or prazosin is the more appropriate second‐line antihypertensive agent in pregnancy At r and om , two therapeutic schemes for severe preeclampsia during the puerperium , were evaluated . Group A ( n = 20 ) was left without antihypertensive medication and sublingual nifedipine was used only in case of diastolic pressure of 110 mmHg or more . Group B ( n = 18 ) receive Hydralazine 40 mlg . per os , every 6 hrs . ; in this group also , nifedipine was administered in case of diastolic pressure of 110 mmHg or more . The only differences were that in group B the intervals for the administration of nifedipine  were much shorter than in group A ; also , in the same group the need for another antihypertensive was more frequent ( 5 of 18 vs 1 of 20 patients ) OBJECTIVE We sought to compare the efficacies of oral nifedipine and intravenous labetalol in the acute management of hypertensive emergencies of pregnancy . STUDY DESIGN We performed a r and omized double-blind trial of  oral nifedipine ( 10 mg ) and intravenous labetalol ( 20 mg ) in 50 peripartum patients with sustained systolic blood pressure of > /=170 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of > /=105 mm Hg . Both agents were repeated at sequentially escalating dosages every 20 minutes until a therapeutic goal of systolic blood pressure of < 160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of < 100 mm Hg was achieved . Crossover occurred if the treatment goal was not achieved after 5 doses . Primary outcome was time to achievement of the therapeutic goal . Secondary outcome variables were agent failure , urinary output , and adverse effects . Data were analyzed by unpaired t test , Mann-Whitney U test , and analysis of variance for repeated measures . RESULTS The time to achieve the blood pressure goal was significantly shorter with nifedipine ( mean + /- SD , 25 + /- 13.6 minutes ) than with labetalol ( 43.6 + /- 25.4 minutes ; P = .002 ) . No patients required crossover therapy . Urine output was significantly increased ( P < .001 ) at 1 hour after nifedipine dosing ( 99 + /- 99 mL ) compared with labetalol ( 44.8 + /- 19.1 mL ) and remained significantly increased at 2 , 6 , 12 , 18 , and 24 hours after initial administration . Adverse effects were infrequent . There were no differences in maternal age , gestational age , number of antepartum patients , or enrollment blood pressures between groups . CONCLUSIONS Both oral nifedipine and intravenous labetalol are effective in the management of acute hypertensive emergencies of pregnancy ; however , nifedipine controls hypertension more rapidly and is associated with a significant increase in urinary output Objective : To compare the effects of a single oral dose of nifedipine with those of intravenous dihydralazine on central haemodynamics in pregnant women with severe pre-eclampsia . Design : A prospect i ve comparative study . Setting : The High Risk Obstetric Unit , University Hospital Rotterdam Dijkzigt , Rotterdam . Subjects : Twenty patients with severe pre-eclampsia between 27 and 35 weeks gestation with normal cardiac filling pressures and without fetal distress . Interventions : A pulmonary artery thermodilution catheter and a radial artery line were placed . Ten patients chewed a 10-mg capsule of nifedipine and 10 patients received dihydralazine by intravenous infusion at a rate of 1–3 mg/h . Arterial pressures , heart rate , cardiac output and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure were determined before and after drug administration . Fetal condition was continuously monitored by cardiotocography . Results : The reduction in arterial blood pressure obtained with both drugs was similar , and was associated with a similar rise in heart rate and cardiac output and a similar reduction in systemic vascular resistance . Pulmonary capillary wedge pressures decreased significantly less with nifedipine than with dihydralazine .  Signs of fetal distress occurred in none of the nifedipine-treated patients , but in five of the patients treated with dihydralazine . Conclusion : From the haemodynamic viewpoint nifedipine seems to be a useful agent in the treatment of hypertensive emergencies in pregnancy Intravenous hydralazine is a commonly administered arteriolar vasodilator that is effective for hypertensive emergencies associated with pregnancy . Oral nifedipine is an alternative in management of these patients . In this study the efficacy of nifedipine and hydralazine in pregnancy was compared in a group of Iranian patients . Fifty hypertensive pregnant women were enrolled in the study . A r and omized clinical trial was performed , in which patients in two groups received intravenus hydralazine or oral nifedipine to achieve target blood pressure reduction . The primary outcomes measured were the time and doses required for desired blood pressure achievement . Secondary measures included urinary output and maternal and neonatal side effects . The time required for reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was shorter for oral nifedipine group ( 24.0 ± 10.0 min ) than intravenus Hydralazine group ( 34.8 ± 18.8 min ) ( P ≤ 0.016 ) . Less frequent doses were required with oral nifedipine ( 1.2 ± 0.5 ) compared to intravenus hydralazine ( 2.1 ± 1.0 ) ( P ≤ 0.0005 ) . There were no episodes of hypotension after hydralazine and one after nifedipine . Nifedipine and hydralazine are safe and effective antihypertensive drugs , showing a controlled and comparable blood pressure reduction in women with hypertensive emergencies in pregnancy . Both drugs reduce episodes of persistent severe hypertension . Considering pharmacokinetic properties of nifedipine such as rapid onset and long duration of action , the good oral bioavailability and less frequent side effects , it looks more preferable in hypertension emergencies of pregnancy than hydralazine Summary : Doppler studies of the uterine and umbilical arteries were performed in 24 acutely hypertensive pregnant women . Women were divided into 2 groups : Group 1 ( diastolic blood pressure (DBP)>110 mm Hg ) received placebo ( n = 6 ) or 10 mg oral nifedipine ( n = 9 ) ; Group 2 ( DBP ≥ 110 mm Hg ) received 10 mg oral nifedipine ( n = 5 ) or 10 mg intravenous hydralazine ( n = 4 ) . Treatment allocations were r and om within groups and the investigator and patient were blind to the treatments . Baseline flow velocity waveforms ( FVW ) and posttreatment FVW 's at 30 , 60 and 120 minutes were recorded . There was no significant difference between baseline and posttreatment FVW indices within or between groups . Placebo was as effective as nifedipine in lowering blood pressure over 2 hours of study . There were no significant adverse effects of treatment OBJECTIVE To compare nifedipine ( group 1 ) with methyldopa ( group 2 ) in the management of pregnancy induced hypertension ( PIH ) . DESIGN A prospect i ve clinical trial . SETTING Obstetric Unit , General Hospital , Peradeniya . PATIENTS A total of 126 patients with PIH were allocated alternately to either group . The patients in group 1 received nifedipine 30 to 90 mg/day and in group 2 methyldopa 750 to 2000 mg/day . MEASUREMENTS Blood pressure , the extra days added to the pregnancy , number of patients treated for acute hypertensive episodes , maturity of fetus at birth , mode of delivery , birth weight , intrauterine deaths , Apgar score , maternal side effects and complications . RESULTS The two groups on admission to the study had similar periods of gestation ( group 1 , 33.6 + 5.9 , group 2 , 34.1 + 4.2 ) , systolic blood pressure in mmHg ( 151 + 22 , and 154 + 24 ) and diastolic blood pressure ( 108 + 12 , and 108 + 12 ) . The results showed no differences between the two groups , with respect to maturity of fetus at delivery ( 35.1 + 5.5 , and 35.7 + 2.9 ) , mode of delivery , number of intrauterine deaths , average systolic blood pressure in mmHg ( 148 + 14 and 152 + 16 ) , average diastolic blood pressure ( 102 + 8 and 104 + 9 ) , highest systolic blood pressure ( 169 + 24 and 167 + 30 ) , highest diastolic blood pressure ( 115 + 12 and 116 + 11 ) , birth weight in kg ( 2.015 + 0.957 , and 1.922 + 0.660 ) and number of days added to the pregnancy ( 7 + 7 , 9 + 11 ) . The Apgar score for group 2 was better than in group 1 , and less patients in group 2 required treatment for acute hypertension during the period of study . CONCLUSIONS The results of our study indicate that nifedipine is as effective as methyldopa in the treatment of PIH OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine whether the slower- and longer-acting nifedipine tablets were as effective and safe as the rapid onset and short-acting nifedipine capsules for the treatment of acute severe hypertension in pregnancy . STUDY DESIGN Sixty-four women in the second half of pregnancy who were not in labor r and omly received 10 mg nifedipine tablets ( n = 55 studies ) or 10 mg nifedipine capsules ( n = 74 studies ) if blood pressure was > or = 170/110 mm Hg . Blood pressure , heart rate , and cardiotocography were monitored over the subsequent 90 minutes . Successful treatment was a target blood pressure of 110 to 169/80 to 109 mm Hg after 90 minutes ; unsuccessful treatment included fetal distress at any stage , the requirement for additional treatment ( intravenous hydralazine ) , or the development of hypotension by 90 minutes after treatment . RESULTS Nifedipine capsules lowered blood pressure further ( 28/19 vs 21/13 mm Hg ; P = .03 ) than nifedipine tablets , but more than three quarters of each group had a successful treatment . Twice as many women ( 28 % ) who received nifedipine tablets required a second dose to achieve successful treatment ( P = .05 ) , but fewer 
    Output:
    
There were no differences in adverse maternal or fetal outcomes .
Oral nifedipine , and possibly labetalol and methyldopa , are suitable options for treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy/postpartum