Dataset Information

Efficacy of electrical stimulation on epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Loss of resistance (LOR) technique is a widely used method to identify the epidural space. However, cases of inadequate epidural anesthesia in cesarean section were frequently reported. Also, the success rate of epidural anesthesia with LOR technique varied depending on the proficiency of the practitioner. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of electrical stimulation to identify epidural spaces in cesarean section for novices or clinicians with recent gap in experience. METHODS:Pregnant women scheduled for elective cesarean section were randomly allocated to two groups. Groups were classified based on the methods used for identifying the epidural space: the LOR group (group L) and the LOR with epidural electrical stimulation group (group E). Clinicians with less than 10 epidural cesarean section experiences in the recent year performed epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. In the group E, a RegionalStim® conductive catheter was inserted through the Tuohy needle, and the guidewire passing through the catheter was connected to a peripheral nerve stimulator. The intensity of the stimulation was gradually increased from 0.25?mA to 1.5?mA until paresthesia was elicited and radiated. We assessed the success of epidural anesthesia (complete success, partial success or failure). Other clinical parameters including maternal satisfaction, time required for epidural anesthesia, neonatal Apgar scores, pain scores and adverse events were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:Except for 6 patients who withdrew consent, 54 patients were enrolled in this study (28 for the group L and 26 for the group E). The demographic data showed no difference between the two groups. There was no adverse event resulted from electrical stimulation. The group E showed higher rate of complete success, sensitivity in finding epidural space and maternal satisfaction compared to the group L (21/26 vs. 15/28, p?=?0.034, 0.96 vs. 0.68, p?=?0.012 and 4.04 vs. 3.39, p?=?0.02, respectively). The other clinical parameters showed no differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION:In addition to the conventional LOR technique, identifying epidural spaces using electrical stimulation led to better outcomes without additional risks for novices as well as clinicians with recent gap in experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was retrospectively registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03443466) on February 23, 2018.

SUBMITTER: Kim YS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7285553 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of electrical stimulation on epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.

Kim Young Sung YS Kim Hyo Sung HS Jeong Hyerim H Lee Chung Hun CH Lee Mi Kyoung MK Choi Sang Sik SS

BMC anesthesiology 20200610 1

<h4>Background</h4>Loss of resistance (LOR) technique is a widely used method to identify the epidural space. However, cases of inadequate epidural anesthesia in cesarean section were frequently reported. Also, the success rate of epidural anesthesia with LOR technique varied depending on the proficiency of the practitioner. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of electrical stimulation to identify epidural spaces in cesarean section for novices or clinicians with rece ...[more]

PMID: 32522156

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnticoagulant therapy during pregnancy is widely used due to the increasing awareness of maternal hypercoagulability. Few studies have reported the use of minimally invasive spinal anesthesia in these parturients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive spinal anesthesia in parturients with anticoagulation therapy undergoing cesarean section.MethodsThis was a randomized, controlled study conducted in 239 parturients using anticoagulants and undergoing selective cesarean section. 37 parturients withdrew, and finally parturients received spinal anesthesia using 27gauge pen type fine spinal needles (experimental group, n = 110) and 22gauge traditional spinal needles (control group, n = 92). The primary efficacy outcomes included low back pain (LBP) and postdural puncture headache (PDPH) after delivery. Secondary efficacy outcomes included visual analogue scale during subarachnoid puncture (VASdural), difference between visual analogue scale (VAS) during peripheral venipuncture and VASdural (∆VAS), VAS of back puncture point 24, 48 and 72 h after operation (VASdural-24 h, VASdural-48 h and VASdural-72 h, respectively), maternal satisfaction and hospitalization stay.ResultsNo parturient had PDPH and was suspected with spinal or intracranial haematoma in two groups. There was no significant difference in VASlbp-24 h, VASlbp-48 h and VASlbp-72 h (P = 0.056; P = 0.813; P = 0.189, respectively) between two groups. In experimental group, VASdural (P = 0.017), ∆VAS (P = 0.001) and VASdural-24 h (P < 0.0001) were lower, whereas maternal satisfaction was higher (P = 0.046). There was no significant difference in VASdural-48 h, VASdural-72 h, urination function, strength recovery and hospitalization stay (P = 0.069; P = 0.667; P = 0.105; P = 0.133; P = 0.754, respectively) between the two groups.ConclusionsMinimally invasive spinal anesthesia provided lower VASdural, VASdrual-24 h and a higher maternal satisfaction. Hence, it is considered as a safe, reliable and reasonable option for cesarean section parturients during maternal anticoagulation therapy with normal platelet count and coagulation time.Trial registrationThis study was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov at November 11th, 2016 ( NCT02987192 ).

Project description:BackgroundNorepinephrine infusion decreases hypotension after spinal anesthesia during cesarean section. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of norepinephrine infusion and ephedrine bolus against post-spinal hypotension in parturients.MethodsIn this double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial, parturients scheduled for elective cesarean section were randomly allocated to receive norepinephrine infusion (0.05 μg·kg-1·min-1) just before spinal anesthesia continuing for 30 min or ephedrine bolus (0.15 mg/kg) just before spinal anesthesia. A rescue bolus (5 μg norepinephrine for the norepinephrine group, and 5 mg ephedrine for the ephedrine group) was administered whenever hypotension occurred. Our primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension within 30 min of spinal anesthesia administration. Secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal outcomes 30 min after spinal block, and neonatal cerebral oxygenation 10 min after birth.ResultsIn total, 190 patients were enrolled; of these patients, 177 were included in the final analysis. Fewer patients suffered hypotension in the norepinephrine group than in the ephedrine group (29.5% vs. 44.9%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.95, P = 0.034). Moreover, the tachycardia frequency was lower in the norepinephrine group than in the ephedrine group (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11-0.44, P < 0.001), and patients suffered less nausea and vomiting (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.70, P = 0.004). There was no difference in Apgar scores and umbilical arterial blood gas analysis between the two groups. However, neonatal cerebral regional saturations were significantly higher after birth in the norepinephrine group than in the ephedrine group (mean difference: 2.0%, 95% CI: 0.55%-3.45%, P = 0.008).ConclusionIn patients undergoing elective cesarean section with spinal anesthesia, norepinephrine infusion compared to ephedrine bolus resulted in less hypotension and tachycardia, and exhibited potential neonatal benefits.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02542748; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02542748.

Project description:ImportanceDural-puncture epidural (DPE) and standard epidural are common modes of neuraxial labor analgesia. Little is known about conversion of DPE-initiated labor analgesia to surgical anesthesia for cesarean delivery.ObjectiveTo determine whether DPE provides a faster onset and better-quality block compared with the standard epidural technique for cesarean delivery.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted between April 2019 and October 2022 at a tertiary care university hospital (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences). Participants included women aged 18 years and older undergoing scheduled cesarean delivery with a singleton pregnancy.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive DPE or standard epidural in the labor and delivery room. A T10 sensory block was achieved and maintained using a low concentration of bupivacaine with fentanyl through the epidural catheter until the time of surgery. Epidural extension anesthesia was initiated in the operating room.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the time taken from chloroprocaine administration to surgical anesthesia (T6 sensory block). The secondary outcome was the quality of epidural anesthesia, as defined by a composite of the following factors: (1) failure to achieve a T10 bilateral block preoperatively in the delivery room, (2) failure to achieve a surgical block at T6 within 15 minutes of chloroprocaine administration, (3) requirement for intraoperative analgesia, (4) repeat neuraxial procedure, and (5) conversion to general anesthesia.ResultsAmong 140 women (mean [SD] age, 30.1 [5.2] years), 70 were randomized to the DPE group, and 70 were randomized to the standard epidural group. The DPE group had a faster onset time to surgical anesthesia compared with the standard epidural group (median [IQR], 422 [290-546] seconds vs 655 [437-926] seconds; median [IQR] difference, 233 [104-369] seconds). The composite rates of lower quality anesthesia were 15.7% (11 of 70 women) in the DPE group and 36.3% (24 of 66 women) in the standard epidural group (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14-0.74; P = .007).Conclusions and relevanceAnesthesia initiated following a DPE technique resulted in faster onset and improved block quality during epidural extension compared with initiation with a standard epidural technique. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in the setting of intrapartum cesarean delivery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03915574.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of electrical stimulation on epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Efficacy of electrical stimulation on epidural anesthesia for cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets