↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Epidural therapy for the treatment of severe pre‐eclampsia in non labouring women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

9 X users


7 Dimensions

Readers on

399 Mendeley
Epidural therapy for the treatment of severe pre‐eclampsia in non labouring women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009540.pub2
Pubmed ID

Amita Ray, Sujoy Ray


Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy-specific multi-organ disorder, which is characterised by hypertension and multisystem organ involvement and which has significant maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Failure of the placental vascular remodelling and reduced uteroplacental flow form the etiopathological basis of pre-eclampsia. There are several established therapies for pre-eclampsia including antihypertensives and anticonvulsants. Most of these therapies aim at controlling the blood pressure or preventing complications of elevated blood pressure, or both. Epidural therapy aims at blocking the vasomotor tone of the arteries, thereby increasing uteroplacental blood flow. This review was aimed at evaluating the available evidence about the possible benefits and risks of epidural therapy in the management of severe pre-eclampsia, to define the current evidence level of this therapy, and to determine what (if any) further evidence is required. To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost of the extended use of epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women. This review aims to compare the use of extended epidural therapy with other methods, which include intravenous magnesium sulphate, anticonvulsants other than magnesium sulphate, with or without use of the antihypertensive drugs and adjuncts in the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia.This review only considered the use of epidural anaesthesia in the management of severe pre-eclampsia in the antepartum period and not as pain relief in labour. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 July 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing epidural therapy versus traditional therapy for pre-eclampsia in the form of antihypertensives, anticonvulsants, magnesium sulphate, low-dose dopamine, corticosteroids or a combination of these, were eligible for inclusion. Trials using a cluster design, and studies published in abstract form only are also eligible for inclusion in this review. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review. The two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. There were no relevant data available for extraction. We included one small study (involving 24 women). The study was a single-centre randomised trial conducted in Mexico. This study compared a control group who received antihypertensive therapy, anticonvulsant therapy, plasma expanders, corticosteroids and dypyridamole with an intervention group that received epidural block instead of the antihypertensives, as well as all the other four drugs. Lumbar epidural block was given using 0.25% bupivacaine, 10 mg bolus and 5 mg each hour on continuous epidural infusion for six hours. This study was at low risk of bias in three domains but was assessed to be high risk of bias in two domains due to lack of allocation concealment and blinding of women and staff, and unclear for random sequence generation and outcome assessor blinding.The included study did not report on any of this review's important outcomes. Meta-analysis was not possible.For the mother, these were: maternal death (death during pregnancy or up to 42 days after the end of the pregnancy, or death more than 42 days after the end of the pregnancy); development of eclampsia or recurrence of seizures; stroke; any serious morbidity: defined as at least one of stroke, kidney failure, liver failure, HELLP syndrome (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets), disseminated intravascular coagulation, pulmonary oedema.For the baby, these were: death: stillbirths (death in utero at or after 20 weeks' gestation), perinatal deaths (stillbirths plus deaths in the first week of life), death before discharge from the hospital, neonatal deaths (death within the first 28 days after birth), deaths after the first 28 days; preterm birth (defined as the birth before 37 completed weeks' gestation); and side effects of the intervention. Reported outcomesThe included study only reported on a single secondary outcome of interest to this review: the Apgar score of the baby at birth and after five minutes and there was no clear difference between the intervention and control groups.The included study also reported a reduction in maternal diastolic arterial pressure. However, the change in maternal mean arterial pressure and systolic arterial pressure, which were the other reported outcomes of this trial, were not significantly different between the two groups. Currently, there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness, safety or cost of using epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women.High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate the use of epidural agents as therapy for treatment of severe pre-eclampsia. The rationale for the use of epidural is well-founded. However there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to show that the effect of epidural translates into improved maternal and fetal outcomes. Thus, there is a need for larger, well-designed studies to come to an evidence-based conclusion as to whether the lowering of vasomotor tone by epidural therapy results in better maternal and fetal outcomes and for how long that could be maintained. Another important question that needs to be answered is how long should extended epidural be used to ensure any potential clinical benefits and what could be the associated side effects and costs. Interactions with other modalities of treatment and women's satisfaction could represent other avenues of research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 399 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 399 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 12%
Student > Bachelor 44 11%
Student > Master 40 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 9%
Student > Postgraduate 22 6%
Other 79 20%
Unknown 132 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 10%
Unspecified 25 6%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 2%
Other 49 12%
Unknown 148 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 446,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.