INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is a common medical disorder in pregnancy, complicating one in ten pregnancies. There is a documented association of untreated hypertension during pregnancy and adverse fetomaternal outcomes. Options for oral antihypertensive include methyldopa, nifedipine and lately labetalol. With multiple oral anti-hypertensives being introduced, it is important to test and compare the efficacy of these drugs. OBJECTIVES:to compare the efficacy of oral nifedipine with oral labetalol in the management of patients with hypertension during pregnancy METHOD: Total 62 patients with a diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy were included and randomly divided into two groups using lottery method i.e. Group-A: Oral Labetalol (200–1800 mg/d) and Group-B: Oral Nifedipine (20–80 mg/day) for blood monitoring on daily basis. Data were entered and analyzed using SPSS v26.0. Independent sample t-test and chi square test were applied to compare the quantitative and qualitative variables. RESULTS: Mean ages of the patients into group-A was 24.19 ± 2.926 years and 23.32 ± 2.688 years of patients in group-B. Mean gestational age of patients in group-A was 29.58 ± 3.529 weeks and 29.39 ± 3.442 weeks of patients in group-B. In group-A (Oral Labetalol), successful control of hypertension at least one of regular usage was noted in 31(100.0%) patients and 31(100.0%) patients in group-B, while proteinuria was noted in 2(6.5%) patients and 6(19.4%) patients in group-B CONCLUSION: Both oral Labetalol as well as Nifedipine controls mean blood pressures in the pregnant woman having hypertension. This research is providing supports for large definitive trials scrutinizing benefit and the side effect of the firstlined antihypertensive treatments. The research has been conducted after the approval through the IRB committee of KEMU/ Lady Aitchison hospital with the registration number 15322/REG/KEMU/2022 dated 04/11/22
Introduction: Despite a larger frequency of OPD patients requiring treatment, why is it not done in OPD should be addressed. Because there is no suction equipment in the ENT OPD, these patients who require suctioning are referred to ENT Emergency Room. This is a source of undue inconvenience for patients. This not only poses a risk to patient safety, but it also has major financial consequences, as well as a negative impact on patient satisfaction, which is a key indicator of treatment quality. Methods: This is a closed-loop audit cycle beginning with recognition of the problem and assessing the magnitude of the problem. Based on the burden of referrals to the MOT, the auditors proposed the changes in practice under hospital OPD guidelines enacted by Pakistan Otolaryngology Association. Results: A significant percentage of 52.5 is requiring ear suction in the first audit cycle. The percentage of patients that had to be referred to ENT OT decreased from 52.5% in the previous audit to a significantly low value of 9.5% in this audit. This clinic’s role is to decrease the burden of referrals, reduce patients’ misery of going to the ER for suctioning, and improve patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Our study discerns the fact that the implementation of some simple protocols will lead to an immense change. The resultant reduction in clinical activity will lead to a reduction in the workload of the doctors too.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.