Intrathecal meperidine as the sole agent for cesarean section

Effect of intrathecal lipophilic opioids on the incidence of shivering in women undergoing cesarean delivery after spinal anesthesia: a systematic review and bayesian network meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Shivering is a common side effect in women having cesarean delivery (CD) under spinal anesthesia, which can be bothersome to the patient, and it can also interfere with perioperative monitoring. In several studies, the intrathecal (IT) addition of a lipophilic opioid to local anesthetics has been shown to decrease the incidence of shivering.

Objective

We performed this network meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of intrathecal lipophilic opioids in preventing the incidence of shivering in patients undergoing CD.

Methods

This review was planned according to the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) guidelines. An English literature search of multiple electronic databases was conducted. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported on the incidence of shivering, with study groups receiving either IT fentanyl, sufentanil, or meperidine in women undergoing CD under spinal anesthesia. Quality of the studies was assessed using the modified Oxford scoring system. Using random-effects modeling, dichotomous data were extracted and summarized using odds ratio (OR) with a 95% credible interval (CrI). Statistical analysis was conducted using R studio version 1.0.153 - Inc.

Results

Twenty-one studies consisting of 1433 patients (Control group: 590 patients in twenty-one studies; Fentanyl group:199 patients in seven studies; Sufentanil group: 156 patients in five studies; Meperidine group: 488 patients in ten studies) met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review investigating the effect of intrathecal lipophilic opioids in preventing the incidence of shivering in women undergoing cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Methodological validity scores ranged from 3 to 7. The Bayesian mixed network estimate showed the incidence of shivering was significantly lower with IT fentanyl (pooled odds ratio (OR): 0.13; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.04 to 0.35; P = 0.0004) and IT meperidine (OR: 0.12; 95% CrI: 0.05 to 0.29; P < 0.00001), but not with IT sufentanil (OR: 0.37; 95% CrI: 0.11 to 1.22; P = 0.23). The IT fentanyl group had a significantly lower incidence of intraoperative discomfort [Risk Ratio (RR): 0.19; 95% CI: 0.10–0.35; P < 0.00001], the IT sufentanil group had a significantly higher incidence of pruritus (RR: 6.18; 95% CI: 1.18–32.46; P = 0.03) The IT meperidine group had a significantly lower incidence of intraoperative discomfort (2.7% vs. 13.6%; RR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.09–0.55; P = 0.001), but there was a significant increase in nausea and vomiting (IT meperidine group vs. Control group: 42.7% vs. 19.4%; RR: 2.56; 95% CI: 1.14–5.75; P = 0.02). Meta-regression analysis based on the opioid dose and quality of the study did not impact the final inference of our result.

Conclusion

IT fentanyl significantly decreased the incidence of shivering in women undergoing CD under spinal anesthesia without increasing maternal adverse events, confirming that routine use in this patient population is a good choice. IT sufentanil did not decrease the incidence of shivering. IT meperidine decreased the incidence and severity of shivering, but its use was also associated with significant nausea and vomiting.

Spinal pethidine for elective caesarean section

Pethidine (meperidine) is a unique member of the opioid family. In addition to its analgesic activity, it also has significant local anaesthetic activity. This property enables it to be used as the sole agent for spinal anaesthesia. We describe the successful use of intrathecal pethidine 1 mg/kg for an elective lower segment caesarean section in a patient presumed to be allergic to amide local anaesthetics. There were no significant adverse effects in either the mother or the newborn.

Antishivering effects of two different doses of intrathecal meperidine in caesarean section: a prospective randomised blinded study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Shivering causes various adverse disturbances and interferes with monitoring. The optimal dose of intrathecal meperidine to prevent shivering without producing other side-effects remains unknown. This prospective randomised double-blinded study was conducted to compare the antishivering effects of two different doses of intrathecal meperidine.

METHODS

Seventy two parturients, scheduled for elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, were enrolled in three different groups. Spinal anaesthesia consisted of bupivacaine 0.5% (10 mg) for the control group (M0), and the same dose of bupivacaine with meperidine 12.5 or 25 mg for the experimental groups (M1, M2). Blood pressure, heart rate, skin and core temperatures, sensory level, capnometry, pulse oximetry, Apgar scores, shivering intensity and intrathecal opioid-related side-effects were evaluated and recorded by a blinded observer. Data were analysed using analysis of variance, χ² test, Kruskal-Wallis H-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. A P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.

RESULTS

Shivering was more intense in group M0 than in groups M1 and M2 with P values of 0.003 and less than 0.001, respectively. The intensity of shivering was comparable in groups M1 and M2. As regards the incidence of significant shivering, it was found to be highest in M0 (4/24 ≈16.7%) in comparison with M1 (0/24) and M2 (0/24) (P = 0.03). Nausea and vomiting occurred more frequently with higher doses of meperidine (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). Other complications were comparable.

CONCLUSION

The use of intrathecal meperidine for caesarean section during spinal anaesthesia for the prevention of shivering cannot be recommended as its use is associated with increased incidence of nausea and vomiting.

Combining Intrathecal Bupivacaine and Meperidine during Caesarean Section to Prevent Spinal Anaesthesia-Induced Hypotension and other Side-Effects

This study compared intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine with low-dose intrathecal plain bupivacaine plus different doses of meperidine (pethidine), administered sequentially, with regard to blood pressure stability, post-operative analgesia and incidence of side-effects in 80 parturients undergoing caesarean section. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups ( n = 20 each group): the HB group received 10 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine intrathecally; the BM35, BM30 and BM25 groups received 5 mg plain bupivacaine plus 35, 30 or 25 mg of meperidine intrathecally, respectively. The incidence of hypotension in the BM25 group was significantly lower than in the HB group. Nausea and vomiting were less prevalent in the BM25 group than in the HB and BM35 groups. In conclusion, sequential administration of 5 mg plain bupivacaine and 25 mg meperidine intrathecally provided better blood pressure stability and a lower incidence of side-effects than bupivacaine alone, without affecting quality of anaesthesia or surgical and patient satisfaction.

The effects of intravenous ephedrine during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial

We designed a randomized, double-blinded study to determine the efficacy and safety of 0.5 mg/kg intravenous ephedrine for the prevention of hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: ephedrine group (n=21) and control group (n=21). Intravenous preload of 15 mL/kg lactated Ringer's solution was given. Shortly after the spinal injection, ephedrine 0.5 mg/kg or saline was injected intravenous for 60 sec. The mean of highest and lowest heart rate in the ephedrine group was higher than those of control group (P<0.05). There were significant lower incidences of hypotension and nausea and vomiting in the ephedrine group compared with the control group (8 [38.1%] vs. 18 [85.7%]); (4 [19%] vs. 12 [57.1%], respectively) (P<0.05). The first rescue ephedrine time in the ephedrine group was significantly longer (14.9+/-7.1 min vs. 7.9+/-5.4 min) than that of the control group (P<0.05). Neonatal outcome were similar between the study groups. These findings suggest, the prophylactic bolus dose of 0.5 mg/kg intravenous ephedrine given at the time of intrathecal block after a crystalloid fluid preload, plus rescue boluses reduce the incidence of hypotension.

Intrathecal fentanyl/meperidine combined with low-dose epidural bupivacaine for Cesarean section in a patient with advanced Krukenberg tumors

This case report demonstrates the anesthetic management of a 41-year-old primiparous parturient with massive ascites due to advanced Krukenberg tumors, undergoing Cesarean section. We chose a combined intrathecal-epidural technique, using intrathecal hypobaric fentanyl and hyperbaric meperidine, and a low dose of epidural bupivacaine in order to avoid hemodynamic instability in this critically ill patient. Surgery was carried out without difficulty under adequate regional anesthesia. The blood pressure was maintained with low doses of phenylephrine and dopamine. Opioid-related complications such as nausea-vomiting, pruritus, drowsiness, and respiratory depression were not observed in this patient. Therefore, intrathecal opioids combined with a low dose of epidural local anesthetics for Cesarean section is suitable for critically ill patients with malignant abdominal tumors, such as a Krukenberg tumor, complicated by massive ascites.

Addition of meperidine to bupivacaine for spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean section

BACKGROUND

In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we investigated the effect of adding meperidine 10 mg to intrathecal bupivacaine on the duration of early postoperative analgesia in 40 patients having elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.

METHODS

Patients received intrathecal injection of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 2.0 ml plus either normal saline 0.2 ml (saline group) or 5% meperidine 0.2 ml (meperidine group). After operation, all patients were given i.v. patient-controlled analgesia using morphine.

RESULTS

The duration of effective analgesia, defined as the time from intrathecal injection to first patient-controlled analgesia demand, was greater in the meperidine group (mean 234 min, 95% confidence interval 200-269 min) compared with the saline group (mean 125 min, 95% confidence interval 111-138 min; P<0.001). The 24 h morphine requirement was similar in the two groups. The meperidine group had a greater incidence of intraoperative nausea or vomiting compared with the saline group (11 vs 3; P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Addition of meperidine 10 mg to intrathecal bupivacaine for Caesarean section is associated with prolonged postoperative analgesia but with greater intraoperative nausea and vomiting.

Transient neurological symptoms after subarachnoid meperidine

IMPLICATIONS

The syndrome of transient neurological symptoms (TNS) after subarachnoid use of local anesthetics, particularly lidocaine, has been well described. This syndrome has not been reported with the subarachnoid use of opioids. This case report describes TNS that occurred after administration of subarachnoid meperidine, an opioid with local anesthetic properties.

The effects of three graded doses of meperidine for spinal anesthesia in African men

The intrathecal injection of 0.7-1 mg/kg meperidine provides spinal anesthesia of only short duration. In this study, we investigated the effects of three different doses of meperidine for spinal anesthesia on the duration and level of sensory block and the incidence of side effects. Forty-five African men were randomly allocated to receive one of three doses of intrathecal meperidine: Group A = 1.2 mg/kg, Group B = 1.5 mg/kg, and Group C = 1.8 mg/kg. The duration of sensory block was significantly longer after 1.5 mg/kg compared with 1.2 mg/kg meperidine (112 +/- 19 vs 79 +/- 27 min; P = 0.001). Increasing the dose to 1.8 mg/kg did not further increase the duration of block. The level and the onset of the block were not affected by the dose. Common side effects were fatigue (27%), pruritus (20%), and nausea (7%). Seven patients had respiratory depression and seven had a decrease of systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP) >30% from baseline. There was no difference in the incidence of any side effect among groups. Respiratory depression and decreases in SAP were observed 5-50 min after meperidine injection. Twenty-two patients had no pain after the sensory block had terminated. We conclude that increasing the dose of meperidine from 1.2 to 1.5 mg/kg increased the duration, but not the level, of sensory block without an increase in side effects.

IMPLICATIONS

Intrathecal meperidine 1 mg/kg provides surgical anesthesia for only 40-90 min. We investigated the effects of three larger doses of meperidine in 45 African men. The 1.5 and 1.8 mg/kg doses provide a longer duration of anesthesia compared with 1.2 mg/kg. Nausea, pruritus, and respiratory depression were common in all dose groups. We conclude that increasing the dose of meperidine from 1.2 to 1.5 mg/kg increased the duration, but not the level, of sensory block without an increase in side effects.

Intrathecal pethidine: pharmacology and clinical applications

Pethidine is the only member of the opioid family that has clinically important local anaesthetic activity in the dose range normally used for analgesia. Pethidine is unique as the only opioid in current use that is effective as the sole agent for spinal anaesthesia. In lower doses, intrathecal pethidine is also an effective analgesic for treating pain in labour. This paper reviews the pharmacology of intrathecal pethidine and clinical experience reported to date. Articles reviewed include those identified by a Medline search using keywords "intrathecal" or "spinal anaesthesia/ anesthesia" and "pethidine" or "meperidine". Reference lists from identified papers were scrutinized to identify further relevant articles.

Local anesthesia for arthroscopic surgery of the ankle using pethidine or prilocaine

Investigation of the intraoperative and postoperative pain-reducing effect of pethidine (meperidine) as compared with local anesthetics given into the ankle joint was performed, in a comparative and double-blind fashion, in 20 patients subjected to arthroscopy of the ankle, diagnostic and surgical procedures. These patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group A consisted of 10 patients receiving prilocaine 5% with adrenaline and the patients of group B received pethidine 5% with adrenaline intraarticularly. During arthroscopy, the patients reported on pain and discomfort using visual analog scales. Ratings did not differ between the two groups, but six patients would not have chosen the local anesthetic technique again. Postoperatively, all patients rated their pain and discomfort at rest and at movement (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 24 hours and at three times during 2 following days). No differences were found between the two groups, except for pain at rest through the whole observation period when significant lower values for pethidine. There were no differences in use of analgesics between the two groups. The current study indicates that pethidine is a potential alternative to prilocaine in arthroscopy of the ankle.

Analgesia following arthroscopy--a comparison of intra-articular morphine, pethidine and fentanyl

It has recently been reported that morphine given in low doses intra-articularly can produce significant analgesia in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee joint surgery. Data are lacking on the effect of other opioids using a local approach for drug delivery. We studied the analgesic effect of intra-articular opioids in 70 patients, divided into 7 groups, subjected to arthroscopic knee surgery in general anesthesia. The dimension of the study was based on a power of 0.8 to detect a 25% difference in pain intensity between those receiving opioids locally versus systemically (alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20). Following surgery, but before terminating anesthesia, the patients received one of the following combinations: 1 mg morphine intra-articularly (i.art.) + saline intramuscularly (i.m.), 10 mg pethidine i.art + saline i.m., or 10 micrograms fentanyl i.art + saline i.m. In three additional groups the three opioids were given i.m. and saline given i.art. An additional control group received saline i.art. + i.m. We did not find any significant difference between the groups considering postoperative pain intensity, need for analgesics or considering time to standing/walking or to discharge, analysing each opioid independently. There was, however, a tendency for pethidine i.art. to produce the lowest pain scores both at rest and during movement (P = 0.06). If analysing the results with regards to if opioids were given intra-articularly or systemically, not considering the type of opioid given, we did however, find a significantly lower total sum of pain scores at movement following local administration (P < 0.05). No specific side-effects were detected. We conclude that pethidine given intra-articularly merits further investigation with respect to postoperative analgesia following the activation of peripheral opioid mechanisms.

Intrathecal meperidine for elective caesarean section: a comparison with lidocaine

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of intrathecal meperidine in patients undergoing Caesarean section, and also to compare meperidine with heavy lidocaine. Fifty full-term pregnant women, ASA physical status I or II, presenting for elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia were randomly divided into two groups with 25 in each, to receive either intrathecal meperidine or lidocaine. All patients received premedication with oral ranitidine, 150 mg, the night before surgery, and again two hours before surgery. Patients in the meperidine group were also given metoclopramide iv 10 mg one hour before surgery. After iv 20 ml.kg-1 Ringer's lactate, patients were given either 5% meperidine 1 mg.kg-1 or 5% heavy lidocaine 1.2 to 1.4 ml intrathecally. The sensory and motor blockades in all except two patients in each group who required sedation at the time of skin incision were adequate for surgery. None of the mothers suffered from any major side effects. The incidence of hypotension was higher in the lidocaine group than in meperidine group (P < 0.05). Pruritus and drowsiness were more common in meperidine group than in lidocaine group (P < 0.01). All the newborns in both groups cried immediately after birth and had an Apgar score > 7. The mean duration of postoperative analgesia was six hours in the meperidine group and one hour in the lidocaine group (P < 0.01). Postoperative analgesia requirement was less in the meperidine than in the lidocaine group (P < 0.01).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Is intra-articular pethidine an alternative to local anaesthetics in arthroscopy? A double-blind study comparing prilocaine with pethidine

We investigated the per- and postoperative pain-reducing effect of pethidine given intra-articularly (i. art.). Thirty patients subjected to knee joint arthroscopy, diagnostic and surgical procedures, were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Group A consisted of ten patients who received 250 mg prilocaine + 200 micrograms adrenaline (i. art.) in a volume of 50 ml, group B of ten patients who received 200 mg pethidine (i. art.) in 50 ml saline, and group C of ten patients who received 200 mg pethidine + 200 micrograms adrenaline (i. art.) in 50 ml saline. During arthroscopy the patients reported on pain intensity and discomfort using visual analogue scales. Ratings were low and did not differ significantly between the three groups. Two of three patients in each group requested additional analgesics or sedatives due to pain and discomfort, but again with no difference between the three groups. Postoperatively all patients rated their pain intensity at rest and during movement (at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 24 h). The patients receiving pethidine (group B) reported significantly less pain at rest and movement than group A patients, in general at 1-4 h postoperatively. A significant difference was detected between groups B and C at 4 h postoperatively. Calculating the total sum of pain scores, patients receiving pethidine (group B) reported significantly less pain both at rest and during movement than those receiving prilocaine (group A). Furthermore, patients in group B used significantly less analgesics than those in group A. Adrenaline did not potentiate the effect of pethidine.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)