Goal-directed fluid therapy may improve hemodynamic stability in parturient women under combined spinal epidural anesthesia for cesarean section and newborn well-being

Subclavian vein ultrasound-guided fluid management to prevent post-spinal anesthetic hypotension during cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hypotension frequently occurs after spinal anesthesia during cesarean delivery, and fluid loading is recommended for its prevention. We evaluated the efficacy of subclavian vein (SCV) ultrasound (US)-guided volume optimization in preventing hypotension after spinal anesthesia during cesarean delivery.

METHODS

This randomized controlled study included 80 consecutive full-term parturients scheduled for cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. The women were randomly divided into the SCVUS group, with SCVUS analysis before spinal anesthesia with SCVUS-guided volume management, and the control group without SCVUS assessment. The SCVUS group received 3 mL/kg crystalloid fluid challenges repeatedly within 3 min with a 1-min interval based on the SCV collapsibility index (SCVCI), while the control group received a fixed dose (10 mL/kg). Incidence of post-spinal anesthetic hypotension was the primary outcome. Total fluid volume, vasopressor dosage, changes in hemodynamic parameters, maternal adverse effects, and neonatal status were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The total fluid volume was significantly higher in the control group than in the SCVUS group (690 [650-757.5] vs. 160 [80-360] mL, p < 0.001), while the phenylephrine dose (0 [0-40] vs. 0 [0-30] µg, p = 0.276) and incidence of post-spinal anesthetic hypotension (65% vs. 60%, p = 0.950) were comparable between both the groups. The incidence of maternal adverse effects, including nausea/vomiting and bradycardia (12.5% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.531 and 7.5% vs. 5%, p = 1.00, respectively), and neonatal outcomes (Apgar scores) were comparable between the groups. SCVCI correlated with the amount of fluid administered (R = 0.885, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SCVUS-guided volume management did not ameliorate post-spinal anesthetic hypotension but reduced the volume of the preload required before spinal anesthesia. Reducing preload volume did not increase the incidence of maternal and neonatal adverse effects nor did it increase the total vasopressor dose. Moreover, reducing preload volume could relieve the heart burden of parturients, which has high clinical significance.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry at chictr.org.cn (registration number, ChiCTR2100055050) on December 31, 2021.

Implications of Continuous Noninvasive Finger Cuff Arterial Pressure Device Use during Cesarean Delivery for Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Preload Optimization: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Although fixed-volume conventional fluid preloading protocol fails to attenuate postspinal hypotension during cesarean delivery, the effect of goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) remains less explored. Continuous noninvasive finger cuff arterial pressure monitoring using devices such as the ClearSight System can provide the noninvasive stroke volume value, enabling clinicians to perform GDFT before spinal anesthesia; however, the efficacy of GDFT requires further elucidation.

Method

In total, 71 consecutive full-term pregnant women were randomly divided into a control group (n = 34) and a GDFT group (n = 37). Before spinal anesthesia, the control group received a fixed dose (1000 mL) of crystalloid fluid, but the GDFT group received repeated 3 mL/kg body weight of crystalloid fluid challenges within 3 minutes with a 1-minute interval between each fluid challenge based on the stroke volume incremental changes obtained using the ClearSight System (targeting a stroke volume increase of ≥5% after a fluid challenge). The primary outcome was the incidence of postspinal hypotension. The secondary outcomes were total fluid volume, vasopressor dosage, hemodynamic parameter changes, maternal adverse effects, and neonatal profiles.

Result

Women in the GDFT group received more fluid than did those in the control group (1132 ± 108 vs. 1247 ± 202 mL; p = 0.0044), but the incidence of postspinal hypotension (79.4% vs. 73.0%,; p = 0.5864) and norepinephrine dose (12.5 ± 10.6 vs. 15.1 ± 12.8 mcg, respectively; p = 0.3512) was comparable between the two groups. Fewer women in the GDFT group experienced nausea (61.76% vs. 35.14%; p = 0.0332). Neonatal outcomes (Apgar score and umbilical blood analysis) were comparable and typical in both groups.

Conclusion

ClearSight-guided GDFT did not ameliorate postspinal hypotension but may reduce nausea. This trial is registered with NCT03013140.

Effects of continuous infusion of phenylephrine vs. norepinephrine on parturients and fetuses under LiDCOrapid monitoring: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Background

Hypotension following spinal anesthesia (SA) during cesarean delivery (CD) occurs commonly and is related with maternal and fetal complications. Norepinephrine infusion is increasingly used for prevention of post-SA hypotension; however, its effects as compared to the traditional phenylephrine infusion remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects of phenylephrine and norepinephrine administered as continuous infusion during elective CD on maternal hemodynamic parameters and maternal and fetal outcomes.

Methods

This prospective, single-center, randomized, controlled study included 238 consecutive term parturients who underwent CD from February 2019 to October 2019. They were randomized to receive continuous infusion of 0.25 μg/kg/min phenylephrine, 0.05 μg/kg/min norepinephrine, or placebo. Hemodynamic monitoring was performed at 10 time points using LiDCOrapid. We analyzed umbilical vein (UV), umbilical artery (UA), and peripheral vein (PV) blood gas indexes and recorded intraoperative complications.

Results

In phenylephrine group, the systolic blood pressure (SBP) remain during the whole operation. Compared to the control group, phenylephrine, but not norepinephrine, significantly increased the systemic vascular resistance (SVR) to counteract the SA-induced vasodilatation, 3 min following norepinephrine/phenylephrine/LR administration (T4): 957.4 ± 590.3 vs 590.1 ± 273.7 (P < 0.000001); 5 min following norepinephrine/phenylephrine/LR administration (T5): 1104 ± 468.0 vs 789.4 ± 376.2 (P = 0.000002). at the time of incision (T6): 1084 ± 524.8 vs 825.2 ± 428.6 (P = 0.000188). Parturients in the phenylephrine group had significantly lower UV (1.91 ± 0.43) (P = 0.0003) and UA (2.05 ± 0.61) (P = 0.0038) lactate level compared to controls. Moreover, the UV pH value was higher in the phenylephrine than in the control group7.37 ± 0.03(P = 0.0013). Parturients had lower incidence of nausea, tachycardia, hypotension in phenylephrine group.

Conclusions

In this dataset, continuous phenylephrine infusion reduced the incidence of SA-induced hypotension, ameliorated SVR, while decreasing overall maternal complications. Phenylephrine infusions are considered the better choice during CD because of the significant benefit to the fetus.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrial.gov Registry, NCT03833895, Registered on 1 February 2019.

Placenta accreta spectrum disorders - Peri-operative management: The role of the anaesthetist

The incidence of placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) is increasing and will become more commonly encountered by obstetric anaesthetists in the elective and emergency settings. Significant maternal and neonatal morbidity is associated with these disorders, and hence it is important for anaesthetists to have early involvement in perioperative planning. Major haemorrhage should be anticipated and requires robust perioperative preparation including Patient Blood Management (PBM) and use of intraoperative strategies for haemorrhage management wherever possible. Several institutions have demonstrated good outcomes with regional anaesthesia alone, but the choice of anaesthetic technique requires individualised planning considering patient, anaesthetic and surgical factors. Optimisation of postoperative analgesia needs additional consideration; it is key to good recovery, minimising the impact on quality of life and reducing the risk of persistent post-surgical pain. Further research is required to ascertain the optimal multi-modal analgesic regime including the role of peripheral nerve blockade.

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.

Enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery: a challenge for anesthesiologists

Enhanced recovery after cesarean (ERAC) delivery is an evidence-based, multi-disciplinary approach throughout pre-, intra-, post-operative period. The ultimate goal of ERAC is to enhance recovery and improve the maternal and neonatal outcomes. This review highlights the role of anesthesiologist in ERAC protocols. This review provided a general introduction of ERAC including the purposes and the essential elements of ERAC protocols. The tool used for evaluating the quality of ERAC (ObsQoR-11) was discussed. The role of anesthesiologist in ERAC should cover the areas including management of peri-operative hypotension, prevention and treatment of intra- and post-operative nausea and vomiting, prevention of hypothermia and multi-modal peri-operative pain management, and active pre-operative management of unplanned conversion of labor analgesia to cesarean delivery anesthesia. Although some concerns still remain, ERAC implementation should not be delayed. Regular assessment and process improvement should be imbedded into the protocol. Further high-quality studies are warranted to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficacy of the ERAC protocol.

Cardiac output measurements during high-risk Cesarean section using electrical bioreactance or arterial waveform analysis: assessment of agreement

OBJECTIVE

Maternal hemodynamics change significantly during Cesarean section complicated by massive hemorrhage or severe hypertensive disease. Cardiac output (CO) monitoring aids early, goal-directed hemodynamic therapy. The aim of this study was to record hemodynamic changes observed during Cesarean section in pregnancies at high risk of hemodynamic instability, using invasive (LiDCOrapid™) and non-invasive (NICOM®) devices, and to assess agreement between the two devices in measuring CO.

METHODS

Simultaneous intraoperative hemodynamic measurements were taken using the LiDCOrapid and NICOM devices, following standardized techniques, in women at high risk of hemodynamic instability undergoing Cesarean section. Agreement in CO measurements between the two devices was assessed using Bland-Altman plots and the agreement:tolerability index (ATI). Agreement analyses were performed for repeated measures in subjects, using centiles.

RESULTS

From 10 women, 307 paired measurements were analyzed. Mean bias (defined as the mean difference in CO measurements between the LiDCOrapid and NICOM devices) was 3.05 (95% CI, 1.89 to 4.21) L/min. Limits of agreement ranged from -1.58 (95% CI, -4.47 to -0.14) to 7.68 (95% CI, 6.24 to 10.56) L/min. The resulting agreement interval was 9.26 L/min which returned an ATI of 2.3.

CONCLUSIONS

There are large mean differences between CO measurements obtained during Cesarean section using the LiDCOrapid and NICOM hemodynamic monitors in pregnant women at high risk of hemodynamic instability, indicating that they should not be considered interchangeable clinically. There is an unacceptably low level of agreement (ATI > 2) in CO measurements between the devices, conferring a high risk of clinical misclassification during massive hemorrhage. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Methods and considerations concerning cardiac output measurement in pregnant women: recommendations of the International Working Group on Maternal Hemodynamics

Cardiac output (CO), along with blood pressure and vascular resistance, is one of the most important parameters of maternal hemodynamic function. Substantial changes in CO occur in normal pregnancy and in most obstetric complications. With the development of several non-invasive techniques for the measurement of CO, there is a growing interest in the determination of this parameter in pregnancy. These techniques were initially developed for use in critical-care settings and were subsequently adopted in obstetrics, often without appropriate validation for use in pregnancy. In this article, methods and devices for the measurement of CO are described and compared, and recommendations are formulated for their use in pregnancy, with the aim of standardizing the assessment of CO and peripheral vascular resistance in clinical practice and research studies on maternal hemodynamics. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Perioperative goal-directed therapy: A systematic review without meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Perioperative goal-directed therapy aims to optimise haemodynamics by titrating fluids, vasopressors and/or inotropes to predefined haemodynamic targets. Perioperative goal-directed therapy is a complex intervention composed of several independent component interventions. Trials on perioperative goal-directed therapy show conflicting results. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the benefits and harms of perioperative goal-directed therapy.

METHODS

PubMED, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched. Trials were included if they had a perioperative goal-directed therapy protocol. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The first secondary outcome was serious adverse events excluding mortality. Risk of bias was assessed, and GRADE was used to evaluate quality of evidence.

RESULTS

One hundred and twelve randomised trials were included of which one trial (1%) had low risk of bias. Included trials varied in patients: types of surgery which was expected due to inclusion criteria; in intervention and comparison: timing of intervention, monitoring devices, haemodynamic variables, target values, use of fluids, vasopressors and/or inotropes as well as combinations of these within protocols; and in outcome: mortality was reported in 87 trials (78%). Due to substantial clinical heterogeneity also within the various types of surgery a meta-analysis of data, including subgroup analyses, as defined in our protocol was considered inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

Clinical heterogeneity in patients, interventions and outcomes in perioperative goal-directed therapy trials is too large to perform meta-analysis on all trials. Future trials and meta-analyses highly depend on universally agreed definitions on aspects beyond type of surgery of the complex intervention and its evaluation.

Cardiac Output Monitoring by Pulse Contour Analysis, the Technical Basics of Less-Invasive Techniques

Routine use of cardiac output (CO) monitoring became available with the introduction of the pulmonary artery catheter into clinical practice. Since then, several systems have been developed that allow for a less-invasive CO monitoring. The so-called “non-calibrated pulse contour systems” (PCS) estimate CO based on pulse contour analysis of the arterial waveform, as determined by means of an arterial catheter without additional calibration. The transformation of the arterial waveform signal as a pressure measurement to a CO as a volume per time parameter requires a concise knowledge of the dynamic characteristics of the arterial vasculature. These characteristics cannot be measured non-invasively and must be estimated. Of the four commercially available systems, three use internal databases or nomograms based on patients’ demographic parameters and one uses a complex calculation to derive the necessary parameters from small oscillations of the arterial waveform that change with altered arterial dynamic characteristics. The operator must ensure that the arterial waveform is neither over- nor under-dampened. A fast-flush test of the catheter–transducer system allows for the evaluation of the dynamic response characteristics of the system and its dampening characteristics. Limitations to PCS must be acknowledged, i.e., in intra-aortic balloon-pump therapy or in states of low- or high-systemic vascular resistance where the accuracy is limited. Nevertheless, it has been shown that a perioperative algorithm-based use of PCS may reduce complications. When considering the method of operation and the limitations, the PCS are a helpful component in the armamentarium of the critical care physician.

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.