Comparative study between ephedrine infusion vs. CO/post loading of fluids for prevention of hypotension in emergency cesarean section under spinal anesthesia

Intravenous infusion route in maternal resuscitation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The concept that upper extremities can be used as an infusion route during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in pregnant women is a reasonable recommendation considering the characteristic circulation of pregnant women; however, this method is not based on scientific evidence.

OBJECTIVE OF THE REVIEW

We conducted a scoping review to determine whether the infusion route should be established above the diaphragm during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a pregnant woman.

DISCUSSION

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs on the infusion of fluids in pregnant women after 20 weeks of gestation requiring establishment of an infusion route due to cardiac arrest, massive bleeding, intra-abdominal bleeding, cesarean section, severe infection, or thrombosis. In total, 3150 articles from electronic database were extracted, respectively. After title and abstract review, 265 articles were extracted, and 116 articles were extracted by full-text screening, which were included in the final analysis. The 116 articles included 78 studies on infusion for pregnant women. The location of the intravenous infusion route could be confirmed in only 17 studies, all of which used the upper extremity to secure the venous route.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women undergo significant physiological changes that differ from those of normal adults, because of pressure and drainage of the inferior vena cava and pelvic veins by the enlarged uterus. Therefore, despite a lack of evidence, it seems logical to secure the infusion route above the diaphragm when resuscitating a pregnant woman.

Safety and efficacy of tetrastarches in surgery and trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130 is a frequently used fluid to replace intravascular losses during surgery or trauma. In the past years, several trials performed in critically ill patients have raised questions regarding the safety of this product. Our aim in this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 6% HES during surgery and in trauma.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018100379). We included 85 fully published articles from 1980 to June 2018 according to the protocol and three additional recent articles up to June 2020 in English, French, German, and Spanish reporting on prospective, randomised, and controlled clinical trials applying volume therapy with HES 130/0.4 or HES 130/0.42, including combinations with crystalloids, to patients undergoing surgery. Comparators were albumin, gelatin, and crystalloids only. A meta-analysis could not be performed for the two trauma studies as there was only one study that reported data on endpoints of interest.

RESULTS

Surgical patients treated with HES had lower postoperative serum creatinine (P<0.001) and showed no differences in renal dysfunction, renal failure, or renal replacement therapy. Although there was practically no further difference in the colloids albumin or gelatin, the use of HES improved haemodynamic stability, reduced need for vasopressors (P<0.001), and decreased length of hospital stay (P<0.001) compared with the use of crystalloids alone.

CONCLUSIONS

HES was shown to be safe and efficacious in the perioperative setting. Results of the present meta-analysis suggest that when used with adequate indication, a combination of intravenous fluid therapy with crystalloids and volume replacement with HES as colloid has clinically beneficial effects over using crystalloids only.

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.