Review
Obstetrics
Magnesium for neuroprophylaxis: fact or fiction?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.003Get rights and content

The use of magnesium for prevention of cerebral palsy in preterm infants has been a pressing clinical question for some time. This issue was recently brought to the forefront again after the completion of a large trial conducted by the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network and published by Rouse et al in August, 2008 in the New England Journal of Medicine. After review of the complex body of literature on this topic, and the recent addition of this important piece of evidence, we discussed the “pros” and “cons” of the evidence-based use of magnesium for prevention of cerebral palsy at the annual meeting for the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine as a luncheon roundtable.

The evidence currently available does not make the clinical decision of whether or not to use magnesium for the prevention of cerebral palsy as clear as we would hope. It appears that despite well-designed and executed studies on this critically important topic in obstetrics, the answer to the question of whether evidence-based medicine supports the use of magnesium for neuroprophylaxis in preterm infants remains unclear.

Section snippets

MagNET

The first study to be completed and published, the Magnesium and Neurologic Endpoints Trial (MagNET), was performed by Mittendorf et al.8 It was conducted at 16 centers in Chicago, IL, from 1995 to 1997. The study population included women who were either experiencing preterm labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM); each was carrying a singleton or twins at less than 34 weeks' gestation. There were 2 protocols: 1 examined MgSO4 use for tocolysis, and the other examined its use

ACTOMgSO4

Data from the Australasian Collaborative Trial of Magnesium Sulphate (ACTOMgSO4) Collaborative Group were published in 2003.9 The population, recruited from 16 centers in Australia or New Zealand, consisted specifically of women who were likely to deliver within 24 hours (eg, they had advanced cervical dilation, severe preeclampsia, or intrauterine growth retardation [IUGR] with worrisome Doppler findings). Participants were randomized to infusions of MgSO4 or normal saline; MgSO4 was

MAGPIE

A secondary analysis of the MAGnesium Sulphate for the Prevention of Eclampsia (MAGPIE) trial is the next relevant study.10 The original MAGPIE study demonstrated that the risk of seizures (eclampsia) among preeclamptic women was 58% lower among those randomized to MgSO4.11 Conducted at 175 hospitals in 33 countries from 1998 to 2001, it included women with preeclampsia, only 24% of whom were at less than 33 weeks' gestation. The protocol involved randomization to a 4 g bolus of MgSO4 followed

PREMAG

In 2008, Marret et al12 published a letter to the editor of the journal Pediatrics, describing follow-up data from an RCT of MgSO4 vs placebo. Their original study was conducted at 13 centers in France from 1997 to 2003.13 Like Crowther et al9 did in the ACTOMgSO4, the PREMAG Trial Collaborative Group randomized women who were believed likely to deliver within 24 hours. Subjects received a 4 g bolus of MgSO4 followed by continuous infusion of 1 g/h or normal saline. A total of 564 women were

BEAM

Finally, in 2008 Rouse et al14 published results from the Beneficial Effects of Antenatal Magnesium Sulfate Trial (BEAM) in the New England Journal of Medicine. This large, multicenter trial was conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network at 20 centers from 1997 to 2004. It included women at less than 32 weeks' gestation, and 87% of the participants had PPROM. Women were randomized to a 6 g bolus of MgSO4

Pro

Once the BEAM results are added to the existing data, particularly those pertaining to the question of MgSO4's potential benefit in neuroprophylaxis, it appears that we should consider using MgSO4 to prevent neurologic complications of pregnancy in the neonate.

Con

Whereas numerous strengths can be cited in the BEAM study, the results could also be interpreted as negative.14 It can be instinctive to conclude that the reason investigators choose a composite as the primary outcome of a study

References (16)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (28)

  • Magnesium sulfate and risk of postpartum uterine atony and hemorrhage: A meta-analysis

    2021, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
    Citation Excerpt :

    The exact mechanism of its action in obstetrics is still not well known but according to our understanding of intracellular physiology it is proposed to act by changing the balance between calcium and Mg and thus their antagonist interaction with other molecules [3,5]. Magnesium sulfate has been also widely used a neuroprotective agent during the last years as it has been proposed that the inhibition of NMDA receptors in the brain prevents the possible cell damage from their activation by hypoxic stress [6,7]. Besides this, MgSO4 also decreases Acetylholine (Ach) in the neuromuscular junction, interferes with actin-myosin, blocks NMDA receptors and depresses selected catecholamines.

  • PREVENTING NEURONAL DAMAGE IN EXTREMELY PRETERM

    2016, Revista Medica Clinica Las Condes
  • The Changing Role of Magnesium in Obstetric Practice

    2013, Anesthesiology Clinics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Over many years, anecdotal evidence has shown a relationship between maternal magnesium sulfate therapy in obstetrics and decreased neurologic morbidity in preterm infants.1 As a result, several multicenter trials have been conducted to better evaluate this relationship.2 Cerebral palsy is a group of chronic, debilitating neurologic disorders and the most common motor disability present in childhood.

  • Magnesium sulfate therapy for the prevention of cerebral palsy in preterm infants: A decision-analytic and economic analysis

    2011, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
    Citation Excerpt :

    Additionally, in multivariable iterative analyses, the magnesium strategy compared with none was chosen 100% of the time for the subgroups of women with PPROM and those at risk for delivery <28 weeks; for all women at risk for preterm delivery, it was only the preferred strategy 86.7% of the time, reflective of both the poor correlation between the diagnosis of PTL and subsequent preterm birth as well as the published data regarding magnesium for neuroprophylaxis. Since the body of evidence regarding magnesium for neuroprophylaxis is challenging to interpret, as many authors have illustrated,43-46 and the extrapolation into clinical practice complex, several investigators have used the technique of metaanalysis to formally pool the results from the primary trials and better estimate the effect of magnesium on risk for CP and neonatal death.8,47 However, one criticism that has been made with regard to interpretation of these metaanalyses is that the patient populations studied in each of the 4 trials varied significantly.

  • Antenatal Exposure to Magnesium Sulfate and Neuroprotection in Preterm Infants

    2011, Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America
    Citation Excerpt :

    Only the meta-analysis of neuroprotective trials demonstrates a reduction in the composite outcome with MgSO4. This finding has reignited the debate on the appropriate use of meta-analytical studies of well-designed and powered individual RCTs.54 Other questions that are not answered in these studies involve the concomitant use of tocolytics with MgSO4 given in the setting of neuroprotection.

  • MgSO<inf>4</inf> neuroprophylaxis: going from evidence to recommendation

    2010, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
View all citing articles on Scopus

Reprints not available from the authors.

This study was supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (to A.B.C. as a Physician Faculty Scholar).

This article summarizes a debate that was conducted during a luncheon roundtable at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, San Diego, CA, Jan. 30, 2009. The information and opinions presented herein reflect solely the views of the debaters and not the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

View full text