Dataset Information

Evaluating an advanced double intravenous vasopressor automated system to treat hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The optimal treatment of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia is uncertain. A novel double intravenous vasopressor automated (DIVA) system reduces hypotension compared to standard care, and was subsequently modified to an advanced-DIVA (ADIVA) system. The primary objective was to compare ADIVA versus DIVA on incidence of hypotension (systolic BP (SBP) < 80% baseline).

Methods

We conducted a randomized-controlled trial in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. SBP and heart rate were measured continuously using a Nexfin monitor. ADIVA delivered 25 μg phenylephrine (heart rate > 60 beats.min^-1) or 2 mg ephedrine (heart rate < 60 beats.min^-1) at SBP 90 to 110% of baseline, 50 μg phenylephrine or 4 mg ephedrine at SBP 80 to 90%, and 75 μg phenylephrine or 6 mg ephedrine at SBP < 80%. ADIVA calculated the trend of SBP; vasopressors were administered rapidly if SBP trended downward, or 30 s if SBP trended upward. In contrast, DIVA delivered 25 μg phenylephrine or 2 mg ephedrine at SBP 90 to 100% of baseline, and 50 μg phenylephrine or 4 mg ephedrine at SBP < 90%. Boluses were followed by a 10-s lockout. Other outcomes included hypertension (SBP > 120% baseline), vasopressor consumption, clinical outcomes, and performance measures from spinal anesthesia to fetal delivery.

Results

We analyzed 94 parturients (ADIVA: n = 46, DIVA: n = 48), with no difference in the incidence of hypotension between ADIVA (78.3%) and DIVA (83.3%, p = 0.677). ADIVA had significantly higher proportion of hypotensive SBP readings, lower phenylephrine consumption and higher umbilical arterial pH. There was no difference in hypertension, bradycardia, ephedrine consumption, intravenous fluid volume, nausea/vomiting, Apgar scores, and umbilical venous pH or lactate. ADIVA maintained SBP higher above baseline with greater fluctuation than DIVA.

Conclusion

ADIVA was associated with a greater proportion of hypotensive SBP readings, reduced phenylephrine consumption, and increased umbilical arterial pH than DIVA. Further research is needed to determine the optimal method of vasopressor delivery in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery.

Trial registration

This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov registry (NCT03620942) on 08/08/2018.

SUBMITTER: Tan HS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9878794 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating an advanced double intravenous vasopressor automated system to treat hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

Tan Hon Sen HS Nagarajan Singaraselvan S Chan Jason Ju In JJI Tan Chin Wen CW Sultana Rehena R Sia Alex Tiong Heng ATH Sng Ban Leong BL

BMC anesthesiology 20230126 1

<h4>Background</h4>The optimal treatment of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia is uncertain. A novel double intravenous vasopressor automated (DIVA) system reduces hypotension compared to standard care, and was subsequently modified to an advanced-DIVA (ADIVA) system. The primary objective was to compare ADIVA versus DIVA on incidence of hypotension (systolic BP (SBP) < 80% baseline).<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a randomized-controlled trial in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery unde ...[more]

PMID: 36703120

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNorepinephrine infusion decreases hypotension after spinal anesthesia during cesarean section. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of norepinephrine infusion and ephedrine bolus against post-spinal hypotension in parturients.MethodsIn this double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial, parturients scheduled for elective cesarean section were randomly allocated to receive norepinephrine infusion (0.05 μg·kg-1·min-1) just before spinal anesthesia continuing for 30 min or ephedrine bolus (0.15 mg/kg) just before spinal anesthesia. A rescue bolus (5 μg norepinephrine for the norepinephrine group, and 5 mg ephedrine for the ephedrine group) was administered whenever hypotension occurred. Our primary outcome was the incidence of hypotension within 30 min of spinal anesthesia administration. Secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal outcomes 30 min after spinal block, and neonatal cerebral oxygenation 10 min after birth.ResultsIn total, 190 patients were enrolled; of these patients, 177 were included in the final analysis. Fewer patients suffered hypotension in the norepinephrine group than in the ephedrine group (29.5% vs. 44.9%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.95, P = 0.034). Moreover, the tachycardia frequency was lower in the norepinephrine group than in the ephedrine group (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11-0.44, P < 0.001), and patients suffered less nausea and vomiting (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.70, P = 0.004). There was no difference in Apgar scores and umbilical arterial blood gas analysis between the two groups. However, neonatal cerebral regional saturations were significantly higher after birth in the norepinephrine group than in the ephedrine group (mean difference: 2.0%, 95% CI: 0.55%-3.45%, P = 0.008).ConclusionIn patients undergoing elective cesarean section with spinal anesthesia, norepinephrine infusion compared to ephedrine bolus resulted in less hypotension and tachycardia, and exhibited potential neonatal benefits.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02542748; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02542748.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravenous palonosetron compared to ondansetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing cesarean section.MethodsFifty-four women scheduled for elective cesarean section were, randomly allocated to ondansetron group (n = 27) or palonosetron group (n = 27). Ten minutes prior to the administration of spinal anesthesia, participants received an intravenous injection of either ondansetron or palonosetron. A prophylactic phenylephrine infusion was initiated immediately following the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was titrated to maintain adequate blood pressure until the time of fetal delivery. The primary outcome was total dose of phenylephrine administered. The secondary outcomes were nausea or vomiting, the need for rescue antiemetics, hypotension, bradycardia, and shivering. Complete response rate, defined as the absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and no need for additional antiemetics, were assessed for up to 24 hours post-surgery.ResultsNo significant differences were observed in the total dose of phenylephrine used between the ondansetron and palonosetron groups (387.5 μg [interquartile range, 291.3-507.8 μg versus 428.0 μg [interquartile range, 305.0-507.0 μg], P = 0.42). Complete response rates also showed no significant differences between the groups both within two hours post-spinal anesthesia (88.9% in the ondansetron group versus 100% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.24) and at 24 hours post-surgery (81.5% in the ondansetron group versus 88.8% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.7). In addition, there was no difference in other secondary outcomes.ConclusionProphylactic administration of palonosetron did not demonstrate a superior effect over ondansetron in mitigating hemodynamic changes or reducing phenylephrine requirements in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl for cesarean section.

Project description:BackgroundThe study aimed to investigate whether prophylactic use of glycopyrrolate decreases the vasopressor requirements to prevent hypotension following spinal anesthesia during non-elective cesarean section.MethodIn 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.ResultsThree 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.ConclusionProphylactic use of glycopyrrolate does not decrease the requirements of vasopressor to prevent hypotension in non-elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.Trial registrationRegistration number: NCT04401345. Date of registration: 26/05/2020. Website: https://clinicaltrials.gov.

Project description:Introduction: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the potential dose-response relationship between prophylactic norepinephrine (NE) infusion rates and the risks of hypotension during cesarean section following spinal anesthesia. Methods: Randomized controlled trials with two or more NE doses for post-spinal hypotension prophylaxis during cesarean section were systematically searched in the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and US Clinical Trials Registry databases until 31 July 2022. The primary outcome was the relative risk of maternal hypotension with different NE regimens (infusion rates or bolus doses). Secondary outcomes included the relative risks of maternal and fetal adverse events with different NE regimens. Results: Ten studies with 1,144 parturients were included for final analysis using restricted cubic splines and random-effects dose-response meta-analysis models. A significant dose-response relationship existed between NE infusion rates and the relative risks of maternal hypotension. Every 0.01 μg/kg/min increment in the NE infusion rate was associated with a 14% decrease in the incidence of post-spinal hypotension. ED50 and ED95 of NE infusion rates for post-spinal hypotension prophylaxis were estimated to be 0.046 (95% CI from 0.032 to 0.085) and 0.2 (95% CI from 0.14 to 0.37) μg/kg/min, respectively. However, a higher NE infusion rate was associated with a higher incidence of maternal hypertension. Conclusion: An increased NE infusion rate was associated with a decreased incidence of post-spinal hypotension but an increased incidence of hypertension. Therefore, 0.07 μg/kg/min was recommended as the initial NE infusion rate for clinical practice, as it was associated with the lowest risk of physician intervention for unstable hemodynamics after spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=349934), identifier (CRD42022349934).

Dataset Information

Evaluating an advanced double intravenous vasopressor automated system to treat hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Evaluating an advanced double intravenous vasopressor automated system to treat hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets