Prevention of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and in the postoperative period.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no intervention given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 April 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of studies and conference abstracts, and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Our primary outcomes are intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Data entry was checked. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-four studies (involving 10,990 women) met our inclusion criteria. Sixty-nine studies, involving 8928 women, contributed data. Most studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Many studies were small with unclear risk of bias and sometimes few events. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was moderate to very low. 5-HT3 antagonists: We found intraoperative nausea may be reduced by 5-HT3 antagonists (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.71, 12 studies, 1419 women, low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in intraoperative vomiting but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73, 11 studies, 1414 women, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in postoperative nausea (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.54, 10 studies, 1340 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and these drugs may show a reduction in postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, 10 studies, 1450 women, low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists: We found dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative nausea but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52, 15 studies, 1180 women, very low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60, 12 studies, 942 women, low-certainty evidence) and postoperative nausea (aRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, 7 studies, 601 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if dopamine antagonists reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92, 9 studies, 860 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids (steroids): We are uncertain if intraoperative nausea is reduced by corticosteroids (aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence) similarly for intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73, 6 studies, 733 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.95, 7 studies, 793 women, low-certainty evidence). Antihistamines: Antihistamines may have little to no effect on intraoperative nausea (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.11, 1 study, 149 women, very low-certainty evidence) or intraoperative vomiting (no events in the one study of 149 women). Antihistamines may reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64, 4 studies, 514 women, low-certainty evidence), however, we are uncertain whether antihistamines reduce postoperative vomiting (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.81, 3 studies, 333 women, very low-certainty evidence). Anticholinergics: Anticholinergics may reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87, 4 studies, 453 women, low-certainty evidence) but may have little to no effect on intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.54, 4 studies; 453 women, very low-certainty evidence). No studies looked at anticholinergics in postoperative nausea, but they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 1 study, 161 women, low-certainty evidence). Sedatives: We found that sedatives probably reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether sedatives reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, 2 studies, 145 women, very low-certainty evidence) and they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, 2 studies, 145 women, low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists: There were no studies assessing intraoperative nausea or vomiting. Opioid antagonists may result in little or no difference to the number of women having postoperative nausea (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.45, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 1.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.43, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence). Acupressure: It is uncertain whether acupressure/acupuncture reduces intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 9 studies, 1221 women, very low-certainty evidence). Acupressure may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.80, 9 studies, 1221 women, low-certainty evidence) but it is uncertain whether it reduces postoperative nausea (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence). Ginger: It is uncertain whether ginger makes any difference to the number of women having intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.21, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.00, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), postoperative nausea (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.77, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence) and postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.65, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence). Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes including adverse effects or women's views.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, corticosteroids, sedatives and acupressure probably or possibly have efficacy in reducing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. However the certainty of evidence varied widely and was generally low. Future research is needed to assess side effects of treatment, women's views and to compare the efficacy of combinations of different medications.

Association Between Hyperbaric Bupivacaine Dose and Maternal Hypotension: Retrospective Database Study of 8226 Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery Under Spinal Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Low-dose (≤8 mg) hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia during cesarean delivery results in reduced efficacy, yet as a secondary outcome was associated with reduced frequency of spinal-induced hypotension. Our primary aim was to investigate the relationship between hyperbaric bupivacaine dose and the occurrence of spinal-induced hypotension for cesarean delivery.

METHODS

Retrospective study of cesarean delivery under spinal or combined spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine in 1 academic institution (2 centers-tertiary and district) from 2012 to 2018. Data were retrieved from the anesthesia information management systems (Metavision, iMDsoft, Tel Aviv, Israel) and the hospital information system, including potential confounding factors, maternal age and weight, hypertensive disease of pregnancy, single/multiple gestation, gestational age, vasopressor administration, planned/urgent surgery, position during anesthesia placement (sitting/lateral), and anesthesiologist seniority. Spinal-induced hypotension was defined as systolic blood pressure that either dropped >20% from baseline or <100 mm Hg. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of spinal-induced hypotension according to hyperbaric bupivacaine dose. Logistic regression was used to characterize the association between the dose of hyberbaric bupivacaine and spinal-induced hypotension after adjusting for confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 8226 women were identified. The hyperbaric bupivacaine dose administered was <9 mg for 2395 (29.1%), 9-9.5 mg for 1031 (12.5%), 10 mg for 4155 (50.5%), and >10 mg for 645 (7.8%). We used a cutoff (<10 vs ≥10 mg) to assess for the primary outcome, using multivariable logistic regression. The incidence of at least 1 spinal-induced hypotension episode was higher in patients who received ≥10 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine, 75.8% vs 62.9% for doses below 10 mg, P < .0001; however, even women with lower doses had hypotension. Hyperbaric bupivacaine dose <10 mg was associated with a lower incidence of spinal hypotension, adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.774, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.669-0.897, and P = .0006, adjusted for confounding factors.Umbilical cord pH was available for 2684 (32.6%) cases. There were significantly more neonates with pH < 7.2, among women who received hyperbaric bupivacaine ≥10 mg (10.1%) versus women who received <10 mg (6.8%), P = .0032; however, in the adjusted model, hyperbaric bupivacaine dose ≥10 mg was not associated with pH < 7.2 and an OR of 0.955 (95% CI, 0.631-1.446, P = .829).

CONCLUSIONS

Our major finding was that hypotension occurred at all doses of hyperbaric bupivacaine, yet occurrence of spinal hypotension was significantly associated with doses ≥10 mg after adjustment for potential confounders.

Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 125 studies involving 9469 women. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids) Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloid Fewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81; 2009 women; 27 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women; very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.78, 5 studies, 413 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19, 14 studies, 1058 women, I² = 29%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 10 studies, 730 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrine There were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus control Ondansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus control Lower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lying There was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence). Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections. External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.

Prevention of hypotension after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section commonly causes maternal hypotension. This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared methods to prevent hypotension in women receiving spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We selected randomised controlled trials that compared an intervention to prevent hypotension with another intervention or inactive control by searching MEDLINE and Embase, Web of Science to December 2018. There was no language restriction. Two reviewers extracted data on trial characteristics, methods and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias for individual trials (Cochrane tool) and quality of evidence (GRADE checklist). We assessed 109 trials (8561 women) and 12 different methods that resulted in 30 direct comparisons. Methods ranked by OR (95%CI) from most effective to least effective were: metaraminol 0.11 (0.04-0.26); norepinephrine 0.13 (0.06-0.28); phenylephrine 0.18 (0.11-0.29); leg compression 0.25 (0.14-0.43); ephedrine 0.28 (0.18-0.43); colloid given before induction of anaesthesia 0.38 (0.24-0.61); angiotensin 2, 0.12 (0.02-0.75); colloid given after induction of anaesthesia 0.52 (0.30-0.90); mephentermine 0.09 (0.01-1.30); crystalloid given after induction of anaesthesia 0.78 (0.46-1.31); and crystalloid given before induction of anaesthesia 1.16 (0.76-1.79). Phenylephrine caused maternal bradycardia compared with control, OR (95%CI) 0.23 (0.07-0.79). Ephedrine lowered umbilical artery pH more than phenylephrine, standardised mean difference (95%CI) 0.78 (0.47-1.49). We conclude that vasopressors should be given to healthy women to prevent hypotension during caesarean section with spinal anaesthesia.

Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 126 studies involving 9565 participants. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids)Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloidFewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.80; 2105 women; 28 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women;very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.79, 6 studies, 509 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13, 15 studies, 1154 women, I² = 37%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 11 studies, 826 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrineThere were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus controlOndansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus controlLower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42 , 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lyingThere was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence).Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections.External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.

Interventions at caesarean section for reducing the risk of aspiration pneumonitis

BACKGROUND

Aspiration pneumonitis is a syndrome resulting from the inhalation of gastric contents. The incidence in obstetric anaesthesia has fallen, largely due to improved anaesthetic techniques and the increased use of regional anaesthesia at caesarean section. However, aspiration pneumonitis is still a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and it is important to use effective prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether interventions given prior to caesarean section reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonitis in women with an uncomplicated pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect. If substantial clinical or statistical heterogeneity was detected, we used random-effects analysis to produce an overall summary.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included in this review. However, only 22 studies, involving 2658 women, provided data for analysis. All the women in the included studies had a caesarean section under general anaesthesia. The studies covered a number of comparisons, but were mostly small and of unclear or poor quality.When compared with no treatment or placebo, there was a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 with antacids (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.32, two studies, 108 women), H2 antagonists (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, two studies, 170 women) and proton pump antagonists (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, one study 80 women). H2 antagonists were associated with a reduced the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with proton pump antagonists (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.97, one study, 120 women), but compared with antacids the findings were unclear. The combined use of 'antacids plus H2 antagonists' was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with placebo (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, one study, 89 women) or compared with antacids alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.92, one study, 119 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence was poor, but the findings suggest that the combination of antacids plus H2 antagonists was more effective than no intervention, and superior to antacids alone in preventing low gastric pH. However, none of the studies assessed potential adverse effects or substantive clinical outcomes. These findings are relevant for all women undergoing caesarean section under general anaesthesia.

Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and can also occur in the period following the procedure. 

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 February 2012) and reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.  

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria but only 41 studies, involving 5046 women, provided useable data for the review involving women having caesareans under regional anaesthesia. The majority of the studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Only two studies included emergency surgery, however, they did not stratify data according to type of surgery. The studies covered numerous comparisons, but the majority of studies involved 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, corticosteroids or acupressure. Studies were mainly small and of unclear quality.Three classes of intervention were found to be effective in at least three out of four of our primary outcomes (intraoperative nausea, intraoperative vomiting, postoperative nausea and postoperative vomiting). These interventions were 5-HT(3) antagonists, dopamine antagonists and sedatives. Other classes of intervention were effective for fewer than three of our primary outcomes.With 5-HT antagonists, we found a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.88, eight studies, 720 women). There were also reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, four studies, 405 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.77, five studies, 565 women). We did not detect a significant reduction in intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.00, seven studies, 668 women).Dopamine antagonists demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.57, nine studies, 636 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64, eight studies, 536 women), with similar reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91, five studies, 412 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.91, six studies, 472 women). These differences were observed with both metoclopramide and droperidol.Sedatives (most commonly propofol) demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, four studies, 285 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, four studies, 285 women), also with a reduction in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, two studies 145 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, two studies, 145 women).Acupressure was found to be effective for intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.90, six studies, 649 women) but not postoperative nausea (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00, three studies, 429 women). Acupressure was not effective at reducing vomiting either intraoperatively (average RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.18, six studies, 649 women) or postoperatively (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.06, three studies, 429 women).Other effective intervention classes included corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics.There were insufficient data to demonstrate any class of intervention was superior to another. There were no significant differences observed in the comparison of combined versus single interventions.Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes or the incidence of adverse effects. However, one study showed an increase in respiratory depression with sedation (midazolam) compared with dopamine antagonists.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that many different interventions have efficacy in preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. There is little evidence that combinations of treatment are better than single agents.

Interventions at caesarean section for reducing the risk of aspiration pneumonitis

BACKGROUND

Aspiration pneumonitis is a syndrome resulting from the inhalation of gastric contents. The incidence in obstetric anaesthesia has fallen, largely due to improved anaesthetic techniques and the increased use of regional anaesthesia at caesarean section. However, aspiration pneumonitis is still a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and it is important to use effective prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether interventions given prior to caesarean section reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonitis in women with an uncomplicated pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies, involving 2658 women, are included, all having a caesarean section under general anaesthesia. The studies covered a number of comparisons, but were mostly small and of unclear or poor quality.When compared to no treatment or placebo, there was a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 with antacids (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.32, two studies, 108 women), H(2) antagonists (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, two studies, 170 women) and proton pump antagonists (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, one study 80 women). H(2) antagonists were associated with a reduced the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with proton pump antagonists (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.97, one study, 120 women), but compared with antacids the findings were unclear. The combined use of 'antacids plus H(2) antagonists' was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with placebo (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, one study, 89 women) or compared with antacids alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.92, one study, 119 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence was poor, but the findings suggest that the combination of antacids plus H(2) antagonists was more effective than no intervention, and superior to antacids alone in preventing low gastric pH. However, none of the studies assessed potential adverse effects or substantive clinical outcomes. These findings are relevant for all women undergoing caesarean section under general anaesthesia.

Vasopressors in obstetrics

Hypotension is a common, treatable side effect of neuraxial anesthesia, which has significant side effects for the mother and demonstrable biochemical effects in the fetus. It is clear that a shift in management of hypotension in the obstetric population is in order, but we can only speculate on the benefits for the compromised fetus due to the lack of available information in that patient population.

[Spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: fluid loading, vasopressors and hypotension]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the different preventive and curative strategies for the management of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

DATA SOURCES

Data related to hypotension during spinal anesthesia for caesarean section were searched in the Medline database. Trials published in English or French were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Hypotension during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia is very frequent (55 to 90%) if not prevented. It can induce complications for the mother and/or the fetus. Crystalloid preload alone is ineffective. Colloid preload is effective but might be better used as a second line treatment. Ephedrine has been the vasopressor of choice for long, but has a weak prophylactic efficacy. In addition, it can induce maternal cardiovascular adverse effects and fetal acidosis. Prophylactic phenylephrine, with or without ephedrine according to maternal heart rate, is at least as effective as ephedrine, with less adverse effects. Crystalloid loading at the time of spinal injection ("co-/post-loading") enhances the haemodynamic control provided by vasopressors.

CONCLUSION

Hypotension during spinal anesthesia for caesarean section must be systematically detected, prevented and treated without delay. The association of vasopressor(s) (phenylephrine with or without ephedrine) with a rapid crystalloid loading at the time of spinal injection represents the most interesting strategy nowadays.

Comparison of effects of rapid colloid loading before and after spinal anesthesia on maternal hemodynamics and neonatal outcomes in cesarean section

BACKGROUND

The effects of colloid loading after spinal anesthesia on hemodynamics in parturients during cesarean section have not been fully understood. This study tested the hypothesis that colloid loading after spinal blockade can reduce hypotension compared with preloading, and affect neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was performed in 54 healthy parturients (ASA I or II) undergoing elective cesarean section. Patients were randomly allocated into one of three groups to receive rapid infusion of 6% hydroxyethylstarch (HES) (70 kDa/0.5) before spinal anesthesia (15 ml x kg(-1), HES preload group, n = 18), or rapid infusion of HES after induction of spinal anesthesia (15 ml x kg(-1), HES coload group, n = 18), or no rapid infusion (control, n = 18). The incidence of hypotension, and the amount of ephedrine used to treat hypotension was compared. Neonatal outcomes were also assessed by pH, base excess, lactate concentration, and Apgar scores.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in HES preload and HES coload groups than control group (P < 0.01). Although systolic blood pressure decreased after spinal blockade in all groups, the lowest SBP after spinal blockade until delivery was significantly higher in fluid loading groups than control (P < 0.001). Similarly, total dose of ephedrine to treat hypotension was lower in fluid loading groups (P < 0.001). Umbilical cord pH, umbilical lactate concentration, and the incidence of neonates with Apgar score <7 were similar.

CONCLUSION

Colloid loading after induction of spinal anesthesia was similarly effective in reducing hypo- tension compared with preloading in cesarean section.

Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Maternal hypotension, the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section, can be associated with severe nausea or vomiting which can pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis and neurological injury).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed eligibility and methodological quality of studies, and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 trials (a total of 4624 women). Crystalloids were more effective than no fluids (relative risk (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.00; one trial, 140 women, sequential analysis) and colloids were more effective than crystalloids (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89; 11 trials, 698 women) in preventing hypotension following spinal anaesthesia at caesarean section. No differences were detected for different doses, rates or methods of administering colloids or crystalloids. Ephedrine was significantly more effective than control (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78; seven trials, 470 women) or crystalloid (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96; four trials, 293 women) in preventing hypotension. No significant differences in hypotension were seen between ephedrine and phenylephrine (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.44; three trials, 97 women) and phenylephrine was more effective than controls (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.45; two trials, 110 women). High rates or doses of ephedrine may increase hypertension and tachycardia incidence. Lower limb compression was more effective than control (no leg compression) (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; seven trials, 399 women) in preventing hypotension, although different methods of compression appeared to vary in their effectiveness. No other comparisons between different physical methods such as position were shown to be effective, but these trials were often small and thus underpowered to detect true effects should they exist.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While interventions such as colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. No conclusions can be drawn regarding rare adverse effects due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.

Prophylactic ephedrine prevents hypotension during spinal anesthesia for Cesarean delivery but does not improve neonatal outcome: a quantitative systematic review

PURPOSE

The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of ephedrine compared with control when given prophylactically to prevent hypotension during spinal anesthesia for Cesarean delivery.

SOURCE

Randomized, controlled trials obtained through MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, contact with leading experts, and a reference list of published articles were analyzed. The following keywords were utilized: spinal anesthesia, hypotension, Cesarean section, pregnancy complications, pregnancy outcome, fetal outcome, neonatal outcome, umbilical blood cord gases, vasopressor and ephedrine. Clinical trials were considered if they compared prophylactic ephedrine, given by any dose or route, vs control.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The 14 clinical trials identified included data from a total of 641 patients. Ephedrine was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (relative risk [RR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86). Most importantly, there was no difference in the risk of fetal acidosis, defined as umbilical arterial pH < 7.2 (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.55 to 3.35) or the incidence of low Apgar scores (< 7 or < 8) at one minute (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.29 to 2.06) and five minutes (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.24 to 2.19).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic ephedrine is more effective than control for preventing hypotension during spinal anesthesia for elective Cesarean delivery but a clinically relevant positive effect on neonatal outcome was not observed. Therefore, the routine use of prophylactic ephedrine to prevent any adverse effects of maternal hypotension following spinal anesthesia for Cesarean delivery is not supported by the current systematic review.

Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Most workers define hypotension as a maternal systolic blood pressure below 70-80% of baseline recordings and/or an absolute value of < 90 - 100mmHg. Hypotension is often associated with nausea and vomiting and, if severe, poses serious risks to mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis and neurological injury). Several strategies are currently used to prevent or minimise hypotension but there is no established ideal technique.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative efficacy and side effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (January 2002) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published or unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials identified from searching are assessed for inclusion by the same two reviewers independently. Studies are excluded from review where: hypotension is not an outcome measure or clearly defined prior to administering a rescue treatment; randomisation is unsatisfactory; the spinal anaesthetic technique or dose of local anaesthetic is not controlled-for; and the intervention is implemented in response to a fall in blood pressure rather than for prevention. Review Manager software is used for calculation of the treatment effect, represented by relative risks and proportional and absolute risk reductions.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials (1477 women) meet our inclusion criteria. Four of fifteen interventions reviewed reduce the incidence of hypotension under spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: (1) crystalloid versus control, relative risk (RR) 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63, 0.98); (2) pre-emptive colloid administration versus crystalloid, RR 0.54 (95% CI 0.37, 0.78); (3) ephedrine versus control, RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.57, 0.84); and (4) lower limb compression versus control, RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.59, 0.83). Ephedrine is associated with dose-related maternal hypertension and tachycardia, and fetal acidosis of uncertain clinical significance.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

No intervention reliably prevents hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. No conclusions are drawn regarding rare adverse effects of interventions due to their probable low incidence and the small numbers of women studied. Further trials are recommended, in particular assessing a combination of the beneficial interventions, ie colloid or crystalloid preloading, ephedrine administration and leg compression with bandages, stockings or inflatable boots.

The effects of an increase of central blood volume before spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a qualitative systematic review

We evaluated in this qualitative systematic review the efficacy of increasing central blood volume on the incidence of hypotension after spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. Randomized controlled trials investigating any method of increasing central blood volume before the initiation of obstetric spinal anesthesia were sought by using MEDLINE (1966-2000), Embase (January 1988-April 2000), and the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2000). Additional reports from retrieved and review articles, hand searching of non-MEDLINE journals, and abstracts of major anesthesia meetings (1994-1999) were located. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension. Secondary outcomes included: ephedrine use, Apgar scores, umbilical cord pH values, and maternal nausea and vomiting. Twenty-three articles met our inclusion criteria with the use of crystalloid preload, colloid preload, and mechanical methods of increasing central volume. Crystalloid preload was inconsistent in preventing hypotension, whereas colloid appeared to be effective in all but one study. Leg wrapping and thromboembolic stockings decreased the incidence of hypotension compared with leg elevation or control. Few differences in fetal outcomes or maternal nausea and vomiting were reported. Increasing central blood volume by using colloid and leg wrapping decreases but does not abolish the incidence of hypotension before spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery.

IMPLICATIONS

We performed a systematic review to determine whether fluid loading reduced the incidence of low blood pressure after spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Although no technique totally eliminates the occurrence of hypotension, colloid administration (starch or gelatin containing fluids) and leg wrapping were the most effective.

Effect of injection rate on hypotension associated with spinal anesthesia for cesarean section

Maternal hypotension is a common problem during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. We evaluated in a prospective observational study the influence of injection speed on maternal hypotension. Hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg, sufentanil 2 microg and morphine 200 microg (total volume 4 mL) were injected either quickly (<15 s) or slowly (=120 s) in 50 women scheduled for elective cesarean section. Hypotension (systolic arterial pressure (SAP) <100 mmHg or <70% of baseline) was promptly treated with 5 mg ephedrine boluses. Slow injection significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension (68% in the 120 s group and 92% in the other, P =0.03). In addition, onset of hypotension was delayed, had a shorter duration and required less ephedrine for hypotension in the 120 s group (11.6 mg vs. 19.6 mg, P =0.019). Anesthesia was satisfactory for all women. We conclude that a 2 mL/min injection rate may be a simple and effective way to reduce the incidence and severity of hypotension during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

Prophylactic ephedrine and hypotension associated with spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery

Hypotension commonly accompanies induction of spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. To determine whether intravenous ephedrine prophylaxis would benefit prehydrated obstetrical patients presenting for elective cesarean section, we studied 30 patients randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups. All patients were preloaded with crystalloid (15 ml/kg), given spinal anesthesia and positioned with left uterine displacement (LUD). During induction, all patients received a 2 ml intravenous bolus and intravenous infusion of the study drug or placebo. The control group (n=10) received a saline bolus and saline infusion, the bolus group (n=10) received an ephedrine bolus (10 mg) and a saline infusion and the infusion group (n=10) received a saline bolus and a two-stage ephedrine infusion (20 mg over 12 min). After induction of anesthesia, systolic blood pressure decreased in the first 5 min in all groups. Hypotension occurred in 6/10 control patients, 5/10 bolus patients and 5/10 infusion patients. The amount of supplemental ephedrine required to treat hypotension did not differ among groups. Although the efficacy of ephedrine prophylaxis for hypotension associated with spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean section cannot be established by the small number of patients studied, this practice does not appear to be clinically relevant at the doses studied.