You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Therapeutics
Systematic review
Calcium channel blockers are effective as first line for tocolysis in the management of preterm labour
  1. Richard G Brown,
  2. David A MacIntyre
  1. Imperial College Parturition Research Group, Division of the Institute of Reproduction and Developmental Biology, Imperial College, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to : Dr David MacIntyre, Imperial College Parturition Research Group, Division of the Institute of Reproduction and Developmental Biology, Imperial College, Hammersmith Campus, London W12 0NN, UK; d.macintyre{at}imperial.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2014-110063

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary on: Flenady V, Wojcieszek AM, Papatsonis DN, et al. Calcium channel blockers for inhibiting preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;6:CD002255OpenUrlPubMed

    Context

    Preterm birth remains as the leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Although tocolytics do not reduce the risk of preterm birth, they effectively delay delivery by 48 h.1 This creates a window of opportunity for corticosteroid administration and transfer to units with neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) facilities, which improves neonatal mortality and morbidity.2 However, a consensus on the most effective tocolytic does not exist. This study aimed to assess the effects of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes when administered to women in preterm labour.

    Methods

    This was an updated review of randomised trials using CCBs as tocolytics for management of preterm birth. Maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes were compared between CCBs (mainly nifedipine), no treatment, placebo and other tocolytics. …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors DM and RGB contributed to analyses of the data, writing, editing and final approval of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.