Effects of Adding Midazolam and Sufentanil to Intrathecal Bupivacaine on Analgesia Quality and Postoperative Complications in Elective Cesarean Section

Epidural ropivacaine versus bupivacaine for cesarean sections: a system review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

It is still no consensus on the use of ropivacaine or bupivacaine in epidural anesthesia for cesarean section (CS), because their anesthetic potency and relative complications remains controversial. This system review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of epidural ropivacaine and bupivacaine for elective CSs and investigate relative complications for parturients and neonates.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science-Direct, and Google Scholar to June 30, 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared epidural ropivacaine with bupivacaine for elective CSs. The success rate of epidural anesthesia (EA) was primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset times of sensory block, maternal side effects, neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH.

RESULTS

We analyzed 8 RCTs with 532 parturients. 0.75% ropivacaine is associated with a shorter onset time of sensory block than 0.5% bupivacaine (SMD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.17; p = .001). 0.5% ropivacaine resulted in a reduced nausea than 0.5% bupivacaine (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.83; p = .008). In addition, there were no significant difference between ropivacaine and bupivacaine groups in terms of success rate of epidural anesthesia, maternal side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, shivering), and neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that there were no significant difference between epidural ropivacaine and bupivacaine for elective CSs in terms of the success rate (85.9% vs. 83.5), maternal side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, shivering), and neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH. But compared with 0.5% bupivacaine, epidural 0.75% ropivacaine was mildly effective for reducing onset time of sensory block and 0.5% ropivacaine reduced the incidence of maternal nausea.

The effect of perioperative benzodiazepine administration on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite recent systematic reviews suggesting their benefit for postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both (PONV) prevention, benzodiazepines have not been incorporated into guidelines for PONV prophylaxis because of concerns about possible adverse effects. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to inform future practice guidelines.

METHODS

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of all languages comparing benzodiazepines with non-benzodiazepine comparators in adults undergoing inpatient surgery. Our outcomes were postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both. We assessed risk of bias for RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We pooled data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We screened 31 413 abstracts and 950 full texts. We included 119 RCTs; 104 were included in quantitative synthesis. Based on moderate certainty evidence, we found that perioperative benzodiazepine administration reduced the incidence of PONV (52 studies, n=5086, relative risk [RR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.89; number needed to treat [NNT] 16; moderate certainty), postoperative nausea (55 studies, n=5916, RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.83; NNT 21; moderate certainty), and postoperative vomiting (52 studies, n=5909, RR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91; NNT 55; moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence shows that perioperative benzodiazepine administration decreases the incidence of PONV. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will inform future clinical practice guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

The protocol for this systematic review was pre-registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361088) and published in BMJ Open (PMID 31831540).

Safety and effectiveness of adding fentanyl or sufentanil to spinal anesthesia: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Spinal infusions of either fentanyl or sufentanil have been reported in international reports, articles, and scientific events worldwide. This study aimed to determine whether intrathecal fentanyl or sufentanil offers safety in mortality and perioperative adverse events.

METHODS

MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane library databases), gray literature, hand-searching, and clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials with no language, data, or status restrictions were included, comparing the effectiveness and safety of adding spinal lipophilic opioid to local anesthetics (LAs). Data were pooled using the random-effects models or fixed-effect models based on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The initial search retrieved 4469 records; 3241 records were eligible, and 3152 articles were excluded after reading titles and abstracts, with a high agreement rate (98.6%). After reading the full texts, 76 articles remained. Spinal fentanyl and sufentanil significantly reduced postoperative pain and opioid consumption, increased analgesia and pruritus. Fentanyl, but not sufentanil, significantly reduced both postoperative nausea and vomiting, and postoperative shivering; compared to LAs alone. The analyzed studies did not report any case of in-hospital mortality related to spinal lipophilic opioids. The rate of respiratory depression was 0.7% and 0.8% when spinal fentanyl or sufentanil was added and when it was not, respectively. Episodes of respiratory depression were rare, uneventful, occurred intraoperatively, and were easily manageable.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate to high quality certainty that there is evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of adding lipophilic opioids to LAs in spinal anesthesia.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the addition of intrathecal midazolam as an adjuvant to spinal anesthesia in cesarean delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety, in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes, of adding intrathecal midazolam to spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in healthy pregnant women.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were searched manually, and citation screening was completed on May 20, 2021.

SETTING

Most of the included data were collected in the operating room and postoperative recovery area.

PATIENTS

A total of 1382 healthy parturients undergoing cesarean delivery with single-shot spinal anesthesia were recruited in 19 eligible randomized controlled trials.

INTERVENTIONS

Single intrathecal midazolam adjuvant was compared to a control, with the local anesthetic dose in spinal anesthesia identical between the intervention and control groups.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcomes were time to first analgesic use, maternal adverse effects, and neonatal Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min. The secondary outcomes were the onset and duration of the sensory and motor blocks.

MAIN RESULTS

Adjuvant intrathecal midazolam prolonged the time to the first analgesic (mean difference [MD]: 59.96 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [23.12, 96.79]) and decreased perioperative maternal nausea and/or vomiting (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% CI: [0.17, 0.45]). However, more sedation events were observed with midazolam (OR, 3.93; 95% CI: [1.12, 13.78]). There was no significant difference in the neonatal Apgar scores at 1 or 5 min (MD: -0.29, 95% CI: [-0.61, 0.03]; MD: -0.00, 95% CI: [-0.11, 0.1], respectively). Intrathecal midazolam also shortened sensory and motor block onset by less than 1 min and prolonged sensory block duration but had no significant effect on motor block duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence indicates that intrathecal midazolam, as an adjuvant to spinal anesthesia, provides modest analgesic and significant antiemetic effects at the cost of more sedation events in cesarean delivery patients. The neonatal Apgar score was not affected by intrathecal midazolam administration. However, more objective, sensitive, and long-term measurements of neonatal safety and maternal neurological effects should be performed in the future.

Sufentanil for Spinal Analgesia during Cesarean Section Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of sufentanil for spinal analgesia during cesarean section.

METHOD

Eligible papers were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and ScienceDirect. Two researchers independently extracted primary and secondary endpoints to compute relative risk and mean difference by using the random-effects model or the fixed-effects model, as appropriate. Publication bias was quantified and assessed using funnel plot and Egger's test.

RESULT

A total of 8 publications with 503 pregnant women were included in this study for meta-analysis. Subarachnoid administration of sufentanil did not significantly reduce the onset time of sensory block and motor block. Nonetheless, subarachnoid administration of sufentanil significantly increased the incidence of postoperative skin pruritus (RR = 5.25, 95%CI: 1.90, 14.49, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Subarachnoid administration of sufentanil has no significant difference in the combined effect value of shortening the onset time of sensory block and motor block, prolonging the onset time of local anesthesia and the incidence of some adverse reactions (such as postoperative nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and tremors). However, the incidence of skin pruritus was significantly increased, and the difference was statistically significant. Because of this, the drug still needs to be used with caution in combination with the actual situation in clinical use.

The relationship between core temperature and perioperative shivering during caesarean section under intrathecal anesthesia with bupivacaine and ropivacaine: a randomized controlled study

Purpose

To assess the incidence rate of perioperative shivering for cesarean section and explore the associations between the occurrence of shivering and hypothermia, core temperature change, local anesthetic.

Methods

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study of 100 patients consenting for caesarean section under intrathecal anesthesia. Parturients with ASA I or II accepted elective caesarean section with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (SA). 2–2.5 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine or 0.5% ropivacaine was intrathecally injected in group B and group R, respectively.

Results

The intraoperative shivering incidence in group B was significantly higher than that in group R (66.7 vs. 20.5%, Pvalue < 0.001), and shivering intensity in group B was significantly greater than group R (score: 1.4 vs. 0.3, Pvalue < 0.001). The core temperature in both groups gradually decreased with the time after SA. Hypothermia (core temperature < 36.0 ℃) 5–30 min after SA was not associated with shivering. However, changes of temperature at 25 and 30 min after SA, and bupivacaine were statistically associated with shivering, with the odds of 10.77 (95% CI: 1.36–85.21, P value = 0.02), 8.88 (95% CI: 1.29–60.97, P value = 0.03), and 7.78 (95% CI: 2.94–20.59, P value < 0.01), respectively.

Conclusions

In our study, for cesarean section, the occurrence of shivering was associated with the local anesthetics and the change of core temperature after SA, while not the hypothermia.

Effects of intrathecal opioids on cesarean section: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the beneficial and harmful effects of opioids used as adjuncts to local anesthetics in patients undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception until March, 2021 without language restrictions. The primary outcome was the complete analgesia duration (Time to VAS > 0). Data were synthesized using the Bayesian random-effects model. Evidence confidence was evaluated using the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 66 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 4400 patients undergoing elective cesarean section. Compared with the placebo, intrathecal opioids (fentanyl, sufentanil, and morphine) significantly prolonged the analgesia duration by 96, 96, and 190 min, respectively (mean difference). Despite morphine ranking first, opioid efficacy was similar; the results were inconsistent with respect to other analgesic outcomes. Except for diamorphine, all opioids were associated with significant increases in the pruritus incidence. Sufentanil and morphine were associated with increases in the respiratory depression incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed that intrathecal opioids benefit postoperative analgesia. Although morphine seems to be the most appropriate agent, some results were inconsistent, and the evidence confidence was often moderate or low, especially for adverse outcomes. Well-designed RCTs with an evidence-based approach are imperative for determining the most appropriate opioid for cesarean sections.

Addition of low-dose sufentanil to ropivacaine for reducing shivering and visceral traction pain during cesarean section

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of low-dose sufentanil for preventing shivering and visceral traction pain during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled study. A total of 112 full-term parturients who underwent elective caesarean delivery were randomly divided into two groups. Group R received 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine intrathecally and group RS received 0.75% isobaric ropivacaine plus 5 µg sufentanil intrathecally.

Results

There were no significant differences in the maximum sensory block time, motor block time, duration of the surgery, and heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and blood oxygen saturation before and 1, 5, and 10 minutes after spinal anesthesia, and at the end of the surgery between the two groups. Shivering was significantly more common in group R (n = 30) than in group RS (n = 8). The incidence of visceral traction pain in group R (46.43%) was significantly higher than that in group RS (14.29%). There was no significant difference in the newborns’ Apgar scores between the groups.

Conclusion

Adding low-dose sufentanil to ropivacaine can significantly reduce the incidence of shivering and visceral traction pain after spinal anesthesia.

Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and in the postoperative period.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no intervention given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 April 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of studies and conference abstracts, and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Our primary outcomes are intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Data entry was checked. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-four studies (involving 10,990 women) met our inclusion criteria. Sixty-nine studies, involving 8928 women, contributed data. Most studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Many studies were small with unclear risk of bias and sometimes few events. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was moderate to very low. 5-HT3 antagonists: We found intraoperative nausea may be reduced by 5-HT3 antagonists (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.71, 12 studies, 1419 women, low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in intraoperative vomiting but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73, 11 studies, 1414 women, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in postoperative nausea (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.54, 10 studies, 1340 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and these drugs may show a reduction in postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, 10 studies, 1450 women, low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists: We found dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative nausea but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52, 15 studies, 1180 women, very low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60, 12 studies, 942 women, low-certainty evidence) and postoperative nausea (aRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, 7 studies, 601 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if dopamine antagonists reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92, 9 studies, 860 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids (steroids): We are uncertain if intraoperative nausea is reduced by corticosteroids (aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence) similarly for intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73, 6 studies, 733 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.95, 7 studies, 793 women, low-certainty evidence). Antihistamines: Antihistamines may have little to no effect on intraoperative nausea (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.11, 1 study, 149 women, very low-certainty evidence) or intraoperative vomiting (no events in the one study of 149 women). Antihistamines may reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64, 4 studies, 514 women, low-certainty evidence), however, we are uncertain whether antihistamines reduce postoperative vomiting (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.81, 3 studies, 333 women, very low-certainty evidence). Anticholinergics: Anticholinergics may reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87, 4 studies, 453 women, low-certainty evidence) but may have little to no effect on intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.54, 4 studies; 453 women, very low-certainty evidence). No studies looked at anticholinergics in postoperative nausea, but they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 1 study, 161 women, low-certainty evidence). Sedatives: We found that sedatives probably reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether sedatives reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, 2 studies, 145 women, very low-certainty evidence) and they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, 2 studies, 145 women, low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists: There were no studies assessing intraoperative nausea or vomiting. Opioid antagonists may result in little or no difference to the number of women having postoperative nausea (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.45, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 1.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.43, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence). Acupressure: It is uncertain whether acupressure/acupuncture reduces intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 9 studies, 1221 women, very low-certainty evidence). Acupressure may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.80, 9 studies, 1221 women, low-certainty evidence) but it is uncertain whether it reduces postoperative nausea (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence). Ginger: It is uncertain whether ginger makes any difference to the number of women having intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.21, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.00, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), postoperative nausea (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.77, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence) and postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.65, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence). Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes including adverse effects or women's views.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, corticosteroids, sedatives and acupressure probably or possibly have efficacy in reducing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. However the certainty of evidence varied widely and was generally low. Future research is needed to assess side effects of treatment, women's views and to compare the efficacy of combinations of different medications.

PROSPECT guideline for elective caesarean section: updated systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations

Caesarean section is associated with moderate‐to‐severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding success and mother‐child bonding. The aim of this systematic review was to update the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after elective caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia. A systematic review utilising procedure‐specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language between 1 May 2014 and 22 October 2020 evaluating the effects of analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies evaluating pain management for emergency or unplanned operative deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia were excluded. A total of 145 studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients undergoing elective caesarean section performed under neuraxial anaesthesia, recommendations include intrathecal morphine 50–100 µg or diamorphine 300 µg administered pre‐operatively; paracetamol; non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone administered after delivery. If intrathecal opioid was not administered, single‐injection local anaesthetic wound infiltration; continuous wound local anaesthetic infusion; and/or fascial plane blocks such as transversus abdominis plane or quadratus lumborum blocks are recommended. The postoperative regimen should include regular paracetamol and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs with opioids used for rescue. The surgical technique should include a Joel‐Cohen incision; non‐closure of the peritoneum; and abdominal binders. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation could be used as analgesic adjunct. Some of the interventions, although effective, carry risks, and consequentially were omitted from the recommendations. Some interventions were not recommended due to insufficient, inconsistent or lack of evidence. Of note, these recommendations may not be applicable to unplanned deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia.

Neuraxial adjuvants for prevention of perioperative shivering during cesarean section: A network meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines

BACKGROUND

Perioperative shivering is clinically common during cesarean sections under neuraxial anesthesia, and several neuraxial adjuvants are reported to have preventive effects on it. However, the results of current studies are controversial and the effects of these neuraxial adjuvants remain unclear.

AIM

To evaluate the effects of neuraxial adjuvants on perioperative shivering during cesarean sections, thus providing an optimal choice for clinical application.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis) guidelines. Analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 14.0. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central databases for eligible clinical trials assessing the effects of neuraxial adjuvants on perioperative shivering and other adverse events during cesarean sections. Perioperative shivering was defined as the primary endpoint, and nausea, vomiting, pruritus, hypotension, and bradycardia were the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies using 9 neuraxial adjuvants for obstetric anesthesia during caesarean sections were included. The results showed that, compared with placebo, pethidine, fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, and sufentanil significantly reduced the incidence of perioperative shivering. Among the four neuraxial adjuvants, pethidine was the most effective one for shivering prevention (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.07-0.35, surface under the cumulative ranking curve 83.9), but with a high incidence of nausea (OR = 3.15, 95%CI: 1.04-9.57) and vomiting (OR = 3.71, 95%CI: 1.81-7.58). The efficacy of fentanyl for shivering prevention was slightly inferior to pethidine (OR = 0.20, 95%CI: 0.09-0.43), however, it significantly decreased the incidence of nausea (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.15-0.79) and vomiting (OR = 0.25, 95%CI: 0.11-0.56). In addition, compared with sufentanil, fentanyl showed no impact on haemodynamic stability and the incidence of pruritus.

CONCLUSION

Pethidine, fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, and sufentanil appear to be effective for preventing perioperative shivering in puerperae undergoing cesarean sections. Considering the risk-benefit profiles of the included neuraxial adjuvants, fentanyl is probably the optimal choice.

Shivering prevention and treatment during cesarean delivery under neuraxial anesthesia: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative shivering during cesarean sections (CSs) under neuraxial anesthesia (NA) is clinically common but often under-treated. It may prominently increase oxygen consumption, which can be catastrophic for parturients with ischemic cardiovascular disease. Thus, the prevention and treatment of shivering may be of great significance in parturients. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the effectiveness of several drugs on shivering prevention and treatment during CSs under NA.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was carried out using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. After literature screening and information extraction, a systematic review was performed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eighteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Intrathecal dexmedetomidine effectively reduced shivering, but effectiveness depended on the dose administered. Intrathecal fentanyl, intrathecal sufentanil, intrathecal meperidine, intravenous ketamine and intravenous tramadol were beneficial for reducing shivering during CSs under NA. MgSO4 administered intrathecally resulted in transient alleviation of shivering, and the effect did not persist. Two trials investigated the antishivering effect of intravenous ondansetron. The medication appeared to be effective in one trial, but ineffective in the other.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate use of dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, sufentanil, ketamine, meperidine, tramadol and MgSO4 may effectively reduce the incidence and severity of shivering during CSs under NA, while trials on the effect of intravenous ondansetron reached inconclusive results.

Intrathecal Sufentanil Does Not Reduce Shivering During Neuraxial Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of intrathecal sufentanil in preventing shivering during neuraxial anesthesia.

MATERIAL/METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase for all randomized controlled trials (RCT) on use of intrathecal sufentanil for preventing shivering during neuraxial anesthesia. References of retrieved articles were also screened. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analysis was conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.3 software. The primary outcome was incidence and severity of shivering, and the secondary outcomes were drug-related complications of pruritus, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and bradycardia.

RESULTS

Eight original RCTs investigating a total of 1032 patients, of whom 599 received sufentanil and 473 received placebo, met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the placebo group, sufentanil did not reduce incidence of shivering (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.01; P=0.06), but it increased the incidence of pruritus (OR, 12.52; 95% CI, 5.07 to 30.91; P<0.00001). Compared to the placebo group, sufentanil did not increase the incidence of nausea (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.16; P=0.16), hypotension (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.41; P=0.74), or bradycardia (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.82; P=0.70). In addition, sufentanil reduced the incidence of vomiting during neuraxial anesthesia (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.92; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither epidural nor subarachnoid intrathecal sufentanil reduced shivering during neuraxial anesthesia, but it did increase the incidence of pruritus.