The influence of labor epidural analgesia on maternal, uteroplacental and fetoplacental hemodynamics in normotensive parturients: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia provides sufficient analgesia during labor but can cause hypotension despite various prophylactic measures. We studied its effects on pre-placental, fetoplacental, and fetal hemodynamics using Doppler ultrasound. The primary endpoint was the pulsatility index of the umbilical artery at 30 min after establishing epidural analgesia. Secondary endpoints included maternal blood pressures and neonatal outcome data.

METHODS

We included healthy parturients at a cervical dilation ≥2 cm, with or without a request for epidural analgesia (n=32 per group). Ultrasound studies of the uterine arteries, umbilical artery and fetal middle cerebral artery were performed before insertion of the epidural catheter, and 30, 60 and 90 min after; the same time-points were assessed in the non-epidural control group. Maternal blood pressure was measured by a continuous non-invasive arterial pressure monitor.

RESULTS

Ultrasound studies detected no significant differences in pulsatility indices over time in any blood vessel. In contrast to the control group, maternal blood pressures were significantly lower for all measures after the onset of analgesia compared with baseline values (mean systolic pressure decreased from 132.7 ± 15.9 mmHg to 123.1 ± 14.4 mmHg at 30 min, P=0.003). The mean pH value of the umbilical arterial blood was 7.29 (±0.06) in the epidural group versus 7.31 (±0.08) in the control group (P=0.33). The median Apgar score at 5 min was 10 in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-placental, fetoplacental and fetal hemodynamics remained stable despite a statistically significant decrease in maternal blood pressure in laboring parturients receiving epidural analgesia.

A novel device for target controlled administration and reflection of desflurane--the Mirus™

The Anaconda™ system is used to deliver inhalational sedation in the intensive care unit in mainland Europe. The new Mirus™ system also uses a reflector like the Anaconda; however, it also identifies end-tidal concentrations from the gas flow, injects anaesthetics during early inspiration, controls anaesthetic concentrations automatically, and can be used with desflurane, which is not possible using the Anaconda. We tested the Mirus with desflurane in the laboratory. Compared with an external gas monitor, the bias (two standard deviations) of the end-tidal concentration was 0.11 (0.29)% volume. In addition, automatic control was reasonable and maximum concentration delivered was 10.2%, which was deemed to be sufficient for clinical use. Efficiency was > 80% and was also deemed to be acceptable, but only when delivering a low concentration of desflurane (≤ 1.8%). By modifying the reflector, we improved efficiency up to a concentration of 3.6%. The Mirus appears to be a promising new device for long-term sedation with desflurane on the intensive care unit, but efficiency must be improved before routine clinical use becomes affordable.

[Functioning of the anaesthetic conserving device: aspects to consider for use in inhalational sedation]

The new anaesthetic conserving device (ACD) allows the use of isoflurane and sevoflurane without classical anaesthesia workstations. Volatile anaesthetic exhaled by the patient is absorbed by a reflector and released to the patient during the next inspiration. Liquid anaesthetic is delivered via a syringe pump. Currently the use of the ACD is spreading among European intensive care units (ICU). This article focuses on the functioning of the device and on particularities which are important to consider. The ACD constantly reflects 90% of the exhaled anaesthetic back to the patient, but if one exhaled breath contains more than 10 ml of anaesthetic vapour (e.g. >1 vol% in 1,000 ml), the capacity of the reflector will be exceeded and relatively more anaesthetic will be lost to the patient. This spill over decreases efficiency but it also contributes to safety as very high concentrations are averted. Compared to classical anaesthesia systems the ACD used in conjunction with ICU ventilators offers advantages in the ICU setting: investment costs are low, carbon dioxide absorbent is not needed, breathing comfort is higher, anaesthetic consumption is low (equal to an anaesthesia circuit with a fresh gas flow of approximately 1 l/min) and anaesthetic concentrations can be controlled very quickly (increased by small boluses and decreased by removal of the ACD). On the other hand, case costs are higher (single patient use) and a dead space of 100 ml is added. There are pitfalls: by a process called auto-pumping, expansion of bubbles inside the syringe may lead to uncontrolled anaesthetic delivery. Auto-pumping is provoked by high positioning of the syringe pump, heat and prior cooling of the liquid anaesthetic. Inherent to the device is an early inspiratory concentration peak and an end-inspiratory dip which may mislead commonly used gas monitors. Workplace concentrations can be minimized by proper handling, a sufficient turnover of room air is important and gas from the expiration port of the ventilator should be scavenged. Inhalational compared to intravenous ICU sedation offers the advantages of better control of the sedation level, online drug monitoring, no accumulation in patients with renal or hepatic insufficiency and bronchodilation. With a lowered opioid dose spontaneous breathing and intestinal motility are well preserved. A clinical algorithm for the care of patients with respiratory insufficiency including inhalational sedation is proposed. Inhalational sedation with isoflurane has been widely used for more than 20 years in many countries and even for periods of up to several weeks. In the German S3 guidelines for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in intensive care (Martin et al. 2010), inhalational sedation is mentioned as an alternative sedation method for patients ventilated via an endotracheal tube or a tracheal cannula. Nevertheless, isoflurane is not officially licensed for ICU sedation and its use is under the responsibility of the prescribing physician.

Desflurane compared with propofol for postoperative sedation in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that emergence from sedation in postoperative patients in the intensive care unit would be faster and more predictable after sedation with desflurane than with propofol.

METHODS

Sixty patients after major operations were allocated randomly to receive either desflurane or propofol. The target level of sedation was defined by a bispectral index(TM) (BIS(TM)) of 60. All patients were receiving mechanical ventilation of the lungs for 10.6 (SD 5.5) h depending on their clinical state. The study drugs were stopped abruptly in a calm atmosphere with the fresh gas flow set to 6 litres min(-1), and the time until the BIS increased above 75 was measured (t(BIS75), the main objective measure). After extubation of the trachea, when the patients could state their birth date, they were asked to memorize five words.

RESULTS

Emergence times were shorter (P<0.001) after desflurane than after propofol (25th, 50th and 75th percentiles): t(BIS75), 3.0, 4.5 and 5.8 vs 5.2, 7.7 and 10.3 min; time to first response, 3.7, 5.0 and 5.7 vs 6.9, 8.6 and 10.7 min; time to eyes open, 4.7, 5.7 and 8.0 vs 7.3, 10.5 and 20.8 min; time to squeeze hand, 5.1, 6.5 and 10.2 vs 9.2, 11.1 and 21.1 min; time to tracheal extubation, 5.8, 7.7 and 10.0 vs 9.7, 13.5 and 18.9 min; time to saying their birth date, 7.7, 10.5 and 15.5 vs 13.0, 19.4 and 31.8 min. Patients who received desflurane recalled significantly more of the five words. We did not observe major side-effects and there were no haemodynamic or laboratory changes except for a more marked increase in systolic blood pressure after stopping desflurane. Using a low fresh gas flow (air/oxygen 1 litre min(-1)), pure drug costs were lower for desflurane than for propofol (95 vs 171 Euros day(-1)).

CONCLUSIONS

We found shorter and more predictable emergence times and quicker mental recovery after short-term postoperative sedation with desflurane compared with propofol. Desflurane allows precise timing of extubation, shortening the time during which the patient needs very close attention.