Fixed Dose versus Height-Adjusted Conventional Dose of Intrathecal Hyperbaric Bupivacaine for Caesarean Delivery: A Prospective, Double-Blinded Randomised Trial

The optimal intrathecal dose of local anaesthetic for caesarean section (CS) anaesthesia is still being debated. We performed a study to compare the effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia with 12.5 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine and a dosing regimen of conventional doses adjusted to parturient height. One hundred and forty parturients scheduled for elective CS were enrolled. The fixed-dose group (FD) received a spinal block with 12.5 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine with fentanyl, whereas the adjusted-dose group (AD) received a height-adjusted dose of bupivacaine (9-13 mg) with fentanyl. Sensory block ≥ T5 dermatome within 10 min and no need for supplementary analgesia were set as the composite primary outcome (success). Rates of successful blocks and complications were compared. Complete data were available for 134 cases. Spinal anaesthesia was successful in 58 out of 67 patients in the FD group and 57 out of 67 in the AD group (p > 0.05). Eight spinals in each group failed to produce a block ≥ T5 in 10 min, and one patient in the FD group and two in the AD group required i.v. analgesics despite sensory block ≥ T5. No differences were noted in terms of hypotension, bradycardia and nausea between the FD and AD groups. Compared to the height-adjusted dose regimen based on conventional doses of hyperbaric bupivacaine, the fixed dose regimen of 12.5 mg was equally effective and did not increase the risk of spinal block-related complications.

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.

Investigation of the Minimum Local Analgesic Concentration of Epidural Sufentanil Combined With Ropivacaine for Labor Analgesia

PURPOSE

Worldwide, there are only few studies focusing on labor analgesia on the MLAC (minimum local analgesic concentration) or EC50 (median effective concentration) of sufentanil and ropivacaine. Therefore, we determine the MLAC or EC50 of sufentanil and ropivacaine for epidural analgesia by using an up-down sequential allocation and survey its adverse effect in a prospective blinded randomized trial.

METHODS

Sixty nulliparous full-term parturients who required labor analgesia were recruited and randomly divided into the sufentanil and ropivacaine groups. The formulation was 25 μg sufentanil combined with 0.1% ropivacaine (added 0.9% normal saline to 75 ml). According to the response of a previous parturient, the dosage of sufentanil was increased or decreased by 5 μg in the sufetanil group; meanwhile, we also administrated an initial concentration of 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 22.5 μg sufentanil (added 0.9% normal saline to 75 ml) in the ropivacaine group. The concentration of ropivacaine was increased or decreased by 0.01% following the response of the previous parturient. The Brownlee up-down sequential allocation was used to estimate the MLAC of epidural ropivacaine and its 95% confidence intervals in labor analgesia.

FINDINGS

There were no significant changes for the two groups, including for age, height weight, active stage, second stage of labor, and gestational weeks (P = 0.769, 0.900, 0.603, 0.441, 0.577, and 0.695, respectively). The VAS scores of the parturient decreased to varying degrees (P < 0.0001) after labor analgesia compared with VAS before labor analgesia, and the most effective analgesia was reached in 60 min. The EC50 dose of epidural ropivacaine combined with 0.3 μg/mL sufentanil was 0.09687%, and the 95% CI was 0.08944%~0.1043%. Five parturients had PONV, and the incidence rate was 16.7%; one parturient had pruritus, so the incidence rate was 3.3%. The EC50 dose of epidural sulfetanil combined with 0.1% ropivacaine was 18.76 μg with a 95% confidence interval of 13.5-24.48 μg. There were no significant differences in the active stage, second stage of labor, and maternal and fetal hemodynamic data between the two groups. Notably, the Apgar scores for 1 min and 5 min were 10 scores for almost all of these patients. There were no significant differences between the two groups for maternal and fetal side effects, which had very low incidence rates.

IMPLICATIONS

The MLAC of epidural sufentanil or ropivacaine could provide satisfactory and safe analgesia for parturients while having a low incidence rate of side effects.

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.

Sugammadex ED90 dose to reverse the rocuronium neuromuscular blockade in obese patients

Objective

to determine the ED90 (minimum effective dose in 90% of patients) of sugammadex for the reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in patients with grade III obesity undergoing bariatric surgery.

Methods

we conducted a prospective study with the biased coin up-and-down sequential design. We chosen the following doses: 2.0mg/Kg, 2.2mg/Kg, 2.4mg/Kg, 2.6mg/Kg, 2.8mg/Kg. The complete reversal of rocuronium-induced NMB considered a T4/T1 ratio ≥0.9 as measured by TOF. After induction of general anesthesia and calibration of the peripheral nerve stimulator and accelerometer, we injected rocuronium 0.6mg/kg. We administered propofol and remifentanil by continuous infusion, and intermittent boluses of rocuronium throughout the procedure.

Results

we evaluated 31 patients, of whom 26 had displayed successful reversal of the NMB with sugammadex, and failure in five. The mean time to complete moderate NMB reversal was 213 seconds (172-300, median 25-75%). The ED90 of sugammadex calculated by regression was 2.39mg/kg, with a 95% confidence interval of 2.27-2.46 mg/kg.

Conclusion

the ED90 of sugammadex in patients with grade III obesity or higher was 2.39mg/kg.

Effect of intravenous phenylephrine infusion on dose requirement of intrathecal plain levobupivacaine for cesarean section: A placebo-controlled preliminary study

BACKGROUND

Phenylephrine infusion has been shown to decrease rostral spread of plain and hyperbaric local anesthetic (LA) when compared to ephedrine infusion. However, it does not result in higher dose requirement of hyperbaric LA for cesarean section. There is no trial evaluating the effect of phenylephrine infusion on ED50 of a plain intrathecal LA.

METHODS

Pregnant patients with term uncomplicated singleton pregnancy undergoing elective cesarean section were given combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. They received intrathecal plain levobupivacaine 0.5% in a dose decided by up-and-down sequential allocation method along with 25 μg fentanyl. Intravenous infusion of phenylephrine (100 μg/ml) or normal saline was initiated immediately after intrathecal injection. Systolic arterial pressure ≤0.8 times baseline was treated using rescue boluses of phenylephrine 50 μg.

RESULTS

Demographic, other patient and surgical characteristics were similar in the two groups. ED50 of intrathecal plain levobupivacaine was significantly greater in phenylephrine group (5.5 mg [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.1-5.9 mg]) compared to saline group (4.2 mg [95% CI: 3.4-5.1 mg]) (P = 0.01). Maximum sensory level, time to achieve adequate block, Apgar scores, and umbilical artery pH were similar in both groups. Total phenylephrine dose and patients having significant bradycardia were lesser in the saline group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrathecal dose requirement of plain levobupivacaine is greater using phenylephrine infusion as compared to saline infusion with rescue phenylephrine boluses. When using phenylephrine as a variable dose regimen titrated to maintain blood pressure within 20% of baseline, the ED50 of plain levobupivacaine is 5.5 mg (95% CI: 5.1-5.9 mg).

Prophylactic phenylephrine for caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted a systematic review to determine the harm and benefit associated with prophylactic phenylephrine for caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. We included 21 randomised controlled trials with 1504 women. The relative risk (95% CI) of hypotension with phenylephrine infusion – as defined by authors – before delivery was 0.36 (0.18–0.73) vs placebo, p = 0.004; 0.58 (0.39–0.88) vs an ephedrine infusion, p = 0.009; and 0.73 (0.55–0.96) when added to an ephedrine infusion, p = 0.02. After delivery, the relative risks of hypotension and nausea and vomiting with phenylephrine compared with placebo were 0.37 (0.19–0.71), p = 0.003, and 0.39 (0.17–0.91), p = 0.03, respectively. There was no evidence that hypertension, bradycardia or neonatal endpoints were affected. Phenylephrine reduced the risk for hypotension and nausea and vomiting after spinal doses of bupivacaine generally exceeding 8 mg, but there was no evidence that it reduced other maternal or neonatal morbidities.

Ephedrine versus phenylephrine for the management of hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: an updated meta-analysis

AIMS

A systematic literature review comparing the efficacy of ephedrine and phenylephrine for the management of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension during Cesarean sections (C-sections) was published in 2002. A number of well-designed trials with controversial results have been published afterward. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis was necessary.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched (last search performed on September 26, 2011). Pooled risk ratio (RR) or standard mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the incidence of intra-operative hypotension or umbilical blood pH values.

RESULTS

A total number of 15 trials and 742 parturients under elective C-sections were analyzed. When used to prevent hypotension, patients receiving ephedrine and phenylephrine did not differ significantly in the incidence of hypotension (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.83-1.80), umbilical arterial pH values (SMD = -0.38; 95% CI, -1.67 to 0.92) or venous pH values (SMD = -0.18; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.07). And administration routes did not affect the incidence of hypotension and umbilical blood pH values. When used to treat hypotension, patients given ephedrine and phenylephrine had comparable incidence of intra-operative hypotension (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.40-1.56), while parturients receiving phenylephrine had neonates with higher umbilical arterial pH values (SMD = -1.32; 95% CI, -2.35 to -0.30) and venous pH values (SMD = -0.79; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.49) than those given ephedrine.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of ephedrine and phenylephrine were both effective in preventing maternal hypotension during C-section under spinal anesthesia; phenylephrine was superior to ephedrine in treating hypotension, evidenced by higher umbilical blood pH values.

Vasopressors for the management of hypotension after spinal anesthesia for elective caesarean section. Systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Phenylephrine use has been recommended over ephedrine for the management of hypotension after spinal anesthesia for elective caesarean section. The evidence for this is rather limited because in previous trials, pH was significantly lower after ephedrine, but absolute values were still within normal range. We pooled the available data to define maternal and neonatal effects of the two vasopressors.

METHODS

Literature was identified by a systematic search. Hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia of the mothers, fetal acidosis defined as a pH < 7.20, and the continuous variables base excess (BE) and arterial pCO(2) of the neonates were recorded. Meta-analysis using the random effects model was performed, and the weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

The criteria for eligibility were fulfilled by 20 trials including 1069 patients. The RR of true fetal acidosis was 5.29 (95%CI 1.62-17.25, ) for ephedrine vs. phenylephrine (P = 0.006). BE values after ephedrine use were significantly lower than after phenylephrine (WMD -1.17; 95% CI -2.01 - -0.33). Umbilical artery pCO(2) did not differ. Mothers treated with ephedrine had a lower risk for bradycardia (RR 0.17; 95%CI 0.07-0.43; P = 0.004). No differences between vasopressors were observed for hypotension and hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis could clearly demonstrate a decreased risk of fetal acidosis associated with phenylephrine use. In addition with our findings for BE, this suggests a favorable effect of phenylephrine on fetal outcome parameters. The mechanism of pH depression is not related to pCO(2) .

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.