Background: Severe maternal hypertension is linked to adverse perinatal outcomes. Both nifedipine and hydralazine are commonly used antihypertensive agents in this setting. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from inception to April 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing oral or sublingual nifedipine with intravenous hydralazine for the management of severe hypertension, with or without preeclampsia/eclampsia. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the two agents regarding time to achieve optimal blood pressure control (MD = −1.08 min, 95% CI = −6.66 to 4.49), caesarean delivery (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.38 to 1.03), neonatal birth weight (MD = 57.65 g, 95% CI = −209.09 to −324.40), NICU admissions (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.41 to 1.98), and 5-min APGAR scores (MD = 0.1, 95% CI = −0.20 to 0.39). However, patients receiving nifedipine had significantly lower odds of experiencing medication-related adverse events (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.97). Conclusions: Nifedipine and intravenous hydralazine showed comparable efficacy in achieving optimal blood pressure control and similar maternal and neonatal outcomes. However, nifedipine was associated with significantly fewer maternal adverse effects, indicating superior tolerability.

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is commonly treated with surgical interventions such as magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) or fundoplication (FP). This meta-analysis evaluates postoperative outcomes of MSA versus FP in GERD management. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Embase up to April 2025, identifying studies comparing MSA and FP for GERD. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I ² statistic, and statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Twelve studies, published between 2014 and 2024, were included. No significant differences were observed in postoperative proton pump inhibitors (PPI) use (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.30–1.67, P = 0.40, I ² = 85%) or GERD-HRQL scores (MD: 0.67, 95% CI: –0.57–1.91, P = 0.29, I ² = 68%) and dysphagia (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.59–2.14, P = 0.72, I ² = 72%) between MSA and FP. MSA significantly improved the ability to belch (OR: 6.78, 95% CI: 4.49–10.22, P < 0.00001, I ² = 43%) and ability to vomit (OR: 5.85, 95% CI: 2.39–14.33, P = 0.0001, I ² = 82%) and reduced gas bloating risk (OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.25–0.75, P = 0.003, I ² = 54%) compared to FP. Conclusions: MSA and FP demonstrate comparable efficacy in GERD symptom control, PPI use, and dysphagia. MSA offers significant advantages in preserving the ability to belch and vomit and reducing gas bloating. Substantial heterogeneity in GERD-HRQL scores, postoperative PPI use, dysphagia, and ability to vomit warrants cautious interpretation, and further studies are needed to optimize surgical approaches.