Dataset Information

Comparison of two vasopressor protocols for preventing hypotension post-spinal anesthesia during cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Norepinephrine 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.

Methods

In 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.

Results

In 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).

Conclusion

In 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02542748; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02542748.

SUBMITTER: Fan QQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8104294 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal treatment of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia is uncertain. A novel double intravenous vasopressor automated (DIVA) system reduces hypotension compared to standard care, and was subsequently modified to an advanced-DIVA (ADIVA) system. The primary objective was to compare ADIVA versus DIVA on incidence of hypotension (systolic BP (SBP) < 80% baseline).MethodsWe conducted a randomized-controlled trial in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. SBP and heart rate were measured continuously using a Nexfin monitor. ADIVA delivered 25 μg phenylephrine (heart rate > 60 beats.min-1) or 2 mg ephedrine (heart rate < 60 beats.min-1) at SBP 90 to 110% of baseline, 50 μg phenylephrine or 4 mg ephedrine at SBP 80 to 90%, and 75 μg phenylephrine or 6 mg ephedrine at SBP < 80%. ADIVA calculated the trend of SBP; vasopressors were administered rapidly if SBP trended downward, or 30 s if SBP trended upward. In contrast, DIVA delivered 25 μg phenylephrine or 2 mg ephedrine at SBP 90 to 100% of baseline, and 50 μg phenylephrine or 4 mg ephedrine at SBP < 90%. Boluses were followed by a 10-s lockout. Other outcomes included hypertension (SBP > 120% baseline), vasopressor consumption, clinical outcomes, and performance measures from spinal anesthesia to fetal delivery.ResultsWe analyzed 94 parturients (ADIVA: n = 46, DIVA: n = 48), with no difference in the incidence of hypotension between ADIVA (78.3%) and DIVA (83.3%, p = 0.677). ADIVA had significantly higher proportion of hypotensive SBP readings, lower phenylephrine consumption and higher umbilical arterial pH. There was no difference in hypertension, bradycardia, ephedrine consumption, intravenous fluid volume, nausea/vomiting, Apgar scores, and umbilical venous pH or lactate. ADIVA maintained SBP higher above baseline with greater fluctuation than DIVA.ConclusionADIVA was associated with a greater proportion of hypotensive SBP readings, reduced phenylephrine consumption, and increased umbilical arterial pH than DIVA. Further research is needed to determine the optimal method of vasopressor delivery in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery.Trial registrationThis study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT03620942) on 08/08/2018.

Project description:BackgroundThe study aimed to investigate whether prophylactic use of glycopyrrolate decreases the vasopressor requirements to prevent hypotension following spinal anesthesia during non-elective cesarean section.MethodIn this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 258 patients undergoing non-elective cesarean section were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous 0.2 mg glycopyrrolate or normal saline (placebo) before spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was phenylephrine equivalent needed intraoperatively. Secondary outcomes included incidences of maternal hypotension, reactive hypertension, bradycardia, need for atropine, tachycardia, intraoperative nausea/vomiting, shivering, pruritus, dry mouth, dizziness; neonatal APGAR score at 1 min and 5 min, neonatal resuscitation needed, NICU admission and neonatal death.ResultsThree patients withdrew from the study due to failed spinal anesthesia. 128 patients in the glycopyrrolate group and 127 patients in the placebo group were analyzed. The mean phenylephrine equivalent needed was 1108.96 μg in the glycopyrrolate group and 1103.64 μg in the placebo group (mean difference, 5.32 μg [95% CI - 67.97 to 78.62]; P = 0.88). Hypotension occurred in 38 patients (30%) in the glycopyrrolate group as compared with 49 patients (39%) in the placebo group (P = 0.13). Tachycardia was reported in 70% of the participants in the glycopyrrolate group and 57% of those in the placebo group (P = 0.04). No statistically significant difference was noted in hypotensive episodes > 1, reactive hypertension, bradycardia, need for atropine, nausea, vomiting, shivering, and dry mouth between the two groups. Neonatal outcomes were similar in the two groups.ConclusionProphylactic use of glycopyrrolate does not decrease the requirements of vasopressor to prevent hypotension in non-elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.Trial registrationRegistration number: NCT04401345. Date of registration: 26/05/2020. Website: https://clinicaltrials.gov.

Project description:BackgroundSpinal anesthesia is the standard technique for elective cesarean section, but the incidence of maternal hypotension in this setting is reportedly about 80%, without any prophylactic management. Vasopressors are the most reliable method for counteracting the hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia. However, studies investigating the effects of vasopressors have yielded inconsistent and debatable results. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to identify the most effective vasopressor to prevent maternal hypotension, and to decrease fetal acidosis in women undergoing spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section.MethodsA systematic and comprehensive search to detect all the randomized controlled studies on vasopressors for the management of maternal hypotension during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia will be performed using information in the databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar, beginning from their inception to October 2018. We will conduct a network meta-analysis to combine the direct and indirect comparisons of the vasopressors. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and rankograms to present the hierarchy of vasopressors. A comparison-adjusted funnel plot will be used to assess the presence of small-study effects. The quality of the studies included will be assessed using the risk of bias tool. All statistical analyses will be performed using Stata SE version 15.0.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethical approval and informed consent are not required, as the study will be a literature review and will not involve direct contact with patients or alterations to patient care.Trial registration numberThe protocol for this review has been registered in the PROSPERO network (registration number: CRD42018111852).