Haemodynamic effects of glycopyrrolate pre-treatment before phenylephrine infusion during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery

Randomized Double-Blinded Comparison of Intermittent Boluses Phenylephrine and Norepinephrine for the Treatment of Postspinal Hypotension in Patients with Severe Pre-Eclampsia During Cesarean Section

Background

Norepinephrine has fewer negative effects on heart rate (HR) and cardiac output (CO) for treating postspinal hypotension (PSH) compared with phenylephrine during cesarean section. However, it remains unclear whether fetuses from patients with severe pre-eclampsia could benefit from the superiority of CO. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of intermittent intravenous boluses of phenylephrine and norepinephrine used in equipotent doses for treating postspinal hypotension in patients with severe pre-eclampsia during cesarean section.

Methods

A total of 80 patients with severe pre-eclampsia who developed PSH predelivery during cesarean section were included. Eligible patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either phenylephrine or norepinephrine for treating PSH. The primary outcome was umbilical arterial pH. Secondary outcomes included other umbilical cord blood gas values, Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min, changes in hemodynamic parameters including CO, mean arterial pressure (MAP), HR, stroke volume (SV), and systemic vascular resistance (SVR), the number of vasopressor boluses required, and the incidence of bradycardia, hypertension, nausea, vomiting, and dizziness.

Results

No significant difference was observed in umbilical arterial pH between the phenylephrine and norepinephrine groups (7.303±0.38 vs 7.303±0.44, respectively; P=0.978). Compared with the phenylephrine group, the overall CO (P=0.009) and HR (P=0.015) were greater in the norepinephrine group. The median [IQR] total number of vasopressor boluses required was comparable between the two groups (2 [1 to 3] and 2 [1 to 3], respectively; P=0.942). No significant difference was found in Apgar scores or the incidence of maternal complications between groups.

Conclusion

A 60 µg bolus of phenylephrine and a 4.5 µg bolus of norepinephrine showed similar neonatal outcomes assessed by umbilical arterial pH and were equally effective when treating PSH during cesarean section in patients with severe pre-eclampsia. Norepinephrine provided a higher maternal CO and a lower incidence of bradycardia.

Refractory hypertension after phenylephrine infusion in cesarean section under subarachnoid block

A 21-year-old female was scheduled to undergo elective cesarean section for breech presentation under the subarachnoid block (SAB). The pre-operative examination was unremarkable and baseline vitals were normal. Under all aseptic precautions and American society of anesthesiologists standard monitoring, SAB was administered with 2.2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Soon after administration of SAB, prophylactic infusion of phenylephrine was started at the rate of 50 μg/min; after pre-treatment with 0.2 mg glycopyrrolate intravenous immediately after the start of the infusion, the patient complained of severe headache. Blood pressure (BP) recorded at that time was 191/102 mm of Hg. Phenylephrine infusion was stopped immediately but the BP remained high and came to within 20% of baseline value only after 9 min of discontinuing the infusion. We report this case of refractory hypertension following phenylephrine infusion in a healthy parturient undergoing elective cesarean section under SAB.

Effect of glycopyrrolate on vasopressor requirements for non-elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background

The study aimed to investigate whether prophylactic use of glycopyrrolate decreases the vasopressor requirements to prevent hypotension following spinal anesthesia during non-elective cesarean section.

Method

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 258 patients undergoing non-elective cesarean section were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous 0.2 mg glycopyrrolate or normal saline (placebo) before spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome was phenylephrine equivalent needed intraoperatively. Secondary outcomes included incidences of maternal hypotension, reactive hypertension, bradycardia, need for atropine, tachycardia, intraoperative nausea/vomiting, shivering, pruritus, dry mouth, dizziness; neonatal APGAR score at 1 min and 5 min, neonatal resuscitation needed, NICU admission and neonatal death.

Results

Three patients withdrew from the study due to failed spinal anesthesia. 128 patients in the glycopyrrolate group and 127 patients in the placebo group were analyzed. The mean phenylephrine equivalent needed was 1108.96 μg in the glycopyrrolate group and 1103.64 μg in the placebo group (mean difference, 5.32 μg [95% CI − 67.97 to 78.62]; P = 0.88). Hypotension occurred in 38 patients (30%) in the glycopyrrolate group as compared with 49 patients (39%) in the placebo group (P = 0.13). Tachycardia was reported in 70% of the participants in the glycopyrrolate group and 57% of those in the placebo group (P = 0.04). No statistically significant difference was noted in hypotensive episodes > 1, reactive hypertension, bradycardia, need for atropine, nausea, vomiting, shivering, and dry mouth between the two groups. Neonatal outcomes were similar in the two groups.

Conclusion

Prophylactic use of glycopyrrolate does not decrease the requirements of vasopressor to prevent hypotension in non-elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

Trial registration

Registration number: NCT04401345. Date of registration: 26/05/2020. Website: https://clinicaltrials.gov

Hemodynamic and antiemetic effects of prophylactic hyoscine butyl-bromide during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Abrupt bradycardia and hemodynamic instability during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section are not uncommon and are considered as one of the primary causes of intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV). We hypothesized that prophylactic use of hyoscine butyl-bromide (HBB) could improve hemodynamics and reduce IONV in parturients undergoing cesarean section.

Methods

A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial was carried out in a tertiary university hospital, patients scheduled for elective cesarean section were equally randomized to receive either IV HBB 20 mg in 1 ml (Hyoscine group) or the same volume of 0.9% saline (Control group), one minute after spinal anesthesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of intraoperative bradycardia (HR < 50 beats min⁻¹). Secondary endpoints included changes in mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), the incidence of Intraoperative and Postoperative nausea or vomiting (IONV & PONV), the fetal heart rate and, Apgar score.

Results

Of the 160 subjects randomized, 80 received HBB and 80 received placebo. There was a significant reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint of intraoperative bradycardia (HR < 50 beats min⁻¹) in the Hyoscine group (0% vs 10%; OR = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.003, 0.93]; P = 0.004) compared with placebo. MAP showed an insignificant difference between groups over time. HBB significantly decreased incidences of IONV and PONV (p = 0.002 & 0.004) respectively.

Conclusions

In parturients undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia, pretreatment with intravenous HBB was a safe measure for both the mother and the baby to reduce the risk of severe intraoperative bradycardia, but not hypotension. Furthermore, it was associated with less incidence of both IONV and PONV.

Trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04069078

Comparison of Prophylactic Norepinephrine and Phenylephrine Infusions During Spinal Anaesthesia for Primary Caesarean Delivery in Twin Pregnancies: A Randomized Double-Blinded Clinical Study

Background

Norepinephrine has been associated with improved heart rate (HR) and cardiac output (CO) compared to phenylephrine as a treatment for post-spinal hypotension during caesarean delivery (CD) in singleton pregnancies. Our current study compared the effects of norepinephrine and phenylephrine in maintaining maternal hemodynamics after spinal anaesthesia in twin pregnancies during elective CD.

Methods

This was a double-blinded, randomized, controlled study. From December 2017 to December 2018, 62 women with healthy twin term pregnancies undergoing elective CD under spinal anaesthesia were studied. Following spinal induction, either norepinephrine (6 μg/mL) or phenylepinephrine (75 μg/mL) was infused at 60 mL/h to maintain systolic blood pressure (SBP) near baseline until delivery. HR, SBP, systemic vascular resistance (SVR), and CO were collected using anaesthesia monitors and continuous-pulse waveform analysis. The primary outcome was maternal CO. Other parameters of maternal hemodynamics, umbilical cord blood gases, and adverse events were also compared.

Results

Hemodynamic variables (CO, SBP, HR, and SVR) between spinal anaesthesia induction to skin incision were similar between the two groups (P = 0.889, 0.057, 0.977, and 0.416, respectively). The incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the phenylephrine group (69%) than in the norepinephrine group (24.2%, P<0.001). Maternal nausea and vomiting, hypotension, reactive hypertension, and neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion

When administered as a prophylactic fixed-rate infusion, phenylephrine and norepinephrine are both capable of maintaining maternal blood pressure following spinal anaesthesia in twin pregnancies. There were no differences in the maternal hemodynamics or foetal outcomes between women receiving norepinephrine and phenylephrine.

Previous Presentations

Presented at the 51st Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, May 1–5, 2019.

Clinical Trial Number and Registry

No. ChiCTR-IOR-17013358.

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.

Prophylactic Norepinephrine Infusion for Preventing Hypotension During Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery

BACKGROUND

The use of norepinephrine for maintaining blood pressure (BP) during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery has been described recently. However, its administration by titrated manually controlled infusion in this context has not been evaluated.

METHODS

In a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 110 healthy women having spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups. In group 1, patients received an infusion of 5 µg/mL norepinephrine that was started at 30 mL/h (2.5 µg/min) immediately after intrathecal injection and then manually adjusted within the range 0-60 mL/h (0-5 µg/min), according to values of systolic BP measured noninvasively at 1-minute intervals until delivery, with the objective of maintaining values near baseline. In group 2, no prophylactic vasopressor was given, and a bolus of 1 mL norepinephrine 5 µg/mL (5 µg) was given whenever systolic BP decreased to <80% of the baseline value. The study protocol was continued until delivery. The primary outcomes of the study were the incidence of hypotension and the overall stability of systolic BP control versus baseline compared using performance error calculations. In addition, the incidence and timing of hypotension were further compared using survival analysis.

RESULTS

Three patients were excluded from the analysis. Nine patients (17%) in group 1 had 1 or more episodes of hypotension versus 35 (66%) in group 2 (P < .001). Performance error calculations showed that on average, systolic BP was maintained closer to baseline (P < .001) in group 1. Survival curve analysis showed a significant difference between groups (log-rank test P < .001). Four patients in each group had a recorded heart rate <60 beats/min (P = .98). Despite a much greater rate of administration of norepinephrine in group 1 (median, 61.0 [interquartile range, 47.0-72.5] µg) versus group 2 (5.0 [0-18.1] µg) (P < .001), there was no difference in neonatal outcome as assessed by Apgar scores and umbilical cord blood gas analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients having spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery, a manually titrated infusion of 5 µg/mL of norepinephrine was effective for maintaining BP and decreasing the incidence of hypotension, with no detectable detrimental effect on neonatal outcome. Further investigation of the use of dilute norepinephrine infusions for routine use in obstetric patients is suggested.

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.

A Rare Case of C2 Sensory Blockade with Preserved Phrenic Nerve Function in an Obstetric Patient

High neuraxial blockade is a serious complication in obstetric patients and requires prompt recognition and management in order to optimize patient outcomes. In cases of high neuroblockade, patients may present with significant hypotension, dyspnea, agitation, difficulty speaking or inability to speak, or even loss of consciousness. We report the unusual presentation of an obstetric patient that remained hemodynamically stable and had the preserved ability to initiate breaths despite sensory blockade up to C2. The presence of differential motor and sensory block documented in this case helped enable the patient to be managed with noninvasive ventilatory support until the high blockade regressed and we are not aware of any other similar reports in literature.

A comparative study of effects of glycopyrrolate and ondansetron on nausea and vomiting in cesarean section under spinal anesthesia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Nausea and vomiting causes distress to patients and increases surgical complications. Though various antiemetics are available, their effectiveness and fetal safety profile when used in parturient remains debatable. This randomized, double-blind, comparative study was designed with an aim to compare the antiemetic effects of ondansetron and glycopyrrolate during cesarean section.

METHODS

Sixty-six parturients (American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status I-II) scheduled for elective cesarean section were randomized to receive intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (Group O, n = 32) or glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg (Group G, n = 31) before spinal anesthesia. Outcome measures studied were emesis, episodes of hypotension and bradycardia and pain, till 10 h postoperative. Statistical software used was Epi Info 7 and Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in nausea and vomiting at all the study intervals between the two groups statistically. There was no difference in episodes of hypotension, but episodes of bradycardia were significantly less in glycopyrrolate group (26%) than in ondansetron group (56%) (P = 0.027). There was no difference in additional analgesic requirements. However, the incidence of dry mouth was significantly greater in glycopyrrolate group (21 [68%]) as compared to ondansetron group (5 [16%]) (P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Effect of glycopyrrolate on nausea and vomiting during cesarean section are comparable to ondansetron, but with an increased incidence of dry mouth. Glycopyrrolate has no effect on hypotension or additional analgesic requirements, but the incidence of bradycardia is significantly less.

Randomized Double-blinded Comparison of Norepinephrine and Phenylephrine for Maintenance of Blood Pressure during Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery

Background:

During spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery, phenylephrine can cause reflexive decreases in maternal heart rate and cardiac output. Norepinephrine has weak β-adrenergic receptor agonist activity in addition to potent α-adrenergic receptor activity and therefore may be suitable for maintaining blood pressure with less negative effects on heart rate and cardiac output compared with phenylephrine.

Methods:

In a randomized, double-blinded study, 104 healthy patients having cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were randomized to have systolic blood pressure maintained with a computer-controlled infusion of norepinephrine 5 μg/ml or phenylephrine 100 μg/ml. The primary outcome compared was cardiac output. Blood pressure heart rate and neonatal outcome were also compared.

Results:

Normalized cardiac output 5 min after induction was greater in the norepinephrine group versus the phenylephrine group (median 102.7% [interquartile range, 94.3 to 116.7%] versus 93.8% [85.0 to 103.1%], P = 0.004, median difference 9.8%, 95% CI of difference between medians 2.8 to 16.1%). From induction until uterine incision, for norepinephrine versus phenylephrine, systolic blood pressure and stroke volume were similar, heart rate and cardiac output were greater, systemic vascular resistance was lower, and the incidence of bradycardia was smaller. Neonatal outcome was similar between groups.

Conclusions:

When given by computer-controlled infusion during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery, norepinephrine was effective for maintaining blood pressure and was associated with greater heart rate and cardiac output compared with phenylephrine. Further work would be of interest to confirm the safety and efficacy of norepinephrine as a vasopressor in obstetric patients.