A comparison between intrathecal nalbuphine versus fentanyl as an adjuvant with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in parturients undergoing lower segment cesarean section

Neena Jain, S. Sethi, Amrit Saini, Veena Patodi, Kavita Jain, Beena Thada
{"title":"A comparison between intrathecal nalbuphine versus fentanyl as an adjuvant with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in parturients undergoing lower segment cesarean section","authors":"Neena Jain, S. Sethi, Amrit Saini, Veena Patodi, Kavita Jain, Beena Thada","doi":"10.4103/joacc.joacc_67_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Nalbuphine when used as an adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine has improved the quality of perioperative analgesia. Fentanyl is a lipophilic opioid with a rapid onset and does not cause respiratory depression and improves duration of sensory anesthesia without producing significant side effects. The aim of this study was to compare intrathecal nalbuphine and fentanyl as adjuvants to hyperbaric bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in lower segment cesarean section. Methods: A total of 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status (PS) I and II parturients were enrolled for lower segment cesarean section. Parturients were randomly allocated into 2 groups - Group F (n = 50) received bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 1.6 ml (8 mg) + fentanyl 20 μg (0.4 ml) and Group N (n = 50) received bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 1.6 ml (8 mg) + nalbuphine 0.4 mg (0.4 ml) under subarachnoid block (total volume = 2 ml). Time of onset and duration of sensory and motor block, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, duration of analgesia, sedation, rescue analgesic consumption, APGAR score, hemodynamic changes and adverse effects were noted. Results: Onset of sensory and motor block were significantly faster in Group F while duration of sensory block was significantly longer in Group N (P < 0.05). Duration of analgesia was also significantly longer in Group N (214.34 ± 9.31 min) compared to Group F (195.00 ± 9.18 min) (P < 0.001). No significant hemodynamic changes and adverse effects were noted in both groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both of these drugs can be effectively used as an adjuvant to hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine in subarachnoid block for parturients undergoing lower segment cesarean section.","PeriodicalId":16611,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/joacc.joacc_67_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nalbuphine when used as an adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine has improved the quality of perioperative analgesia. Fentanyl is a lipophilic opioid with a rapid onset and does not cause respiratory depression and improves duration of sensory anesthesia without producing significant side effects. The aim of this study was to compare intrathecal nalbuphine and fentanyl as adjuvants to hyperbaric bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia in lower segment cesarean section. Methods: A total of 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status (PS) I and II parturients were enrolled for lower segment cesarean section. Parturients were randomly allocated into 2 groups - Group F (n = 50) received bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 1.6 ml (8 mg) + fentanyl 20 μg (0.4 ml) and Group N (n = 50) received bupivacaine 0.5% (heavy) 1.6 ml (8 mg) + nalbuphine 0.4 mg (0.4 ml) under subarachnoid block (total volume = 2 ml). Time of onset and duration of sensory and motor block, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, duration of analgesia, sedation, rescue analgesic consumption, APGAR score, hemodynamic changes and adverse effects were noted. Results: Onset of sensory and motor block were significantly faster in Group F while duration of sensory block was significantly longer in Group N (P < 0.05). Duration of analgesia was also significantly longer in Group N (214.34 ± 9.31 min) compared to Group F (195.00 ± 9.18 min) (P < 0.001). No significant hemodynamic changes and adverse effects were noted in both groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Both of these drugs can be effectively used as an adjuvant to hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine in subarachnoid block for parturients undergoing lower segment cesarean section.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
0.5%高压布比卡因与芬太尼辅助下段剖宫产术后镇痛的比较
背景:纳洛酮作为高压布比卡因的辅助药物,可提高围手术期镇痛质量。芬太尼是一种亲脂性阿片类药物,起效快,不会引起呼吸抑制,可以延长感觉麻醉的持续时间,不会产生显著的副作用。本研究的目的是比较鞘内注射纳洛酮和芬太尼作为高压布比卡因辅助下段剖宫产术后镇痛的效果。方法:共有100名美国麻醉师协会(ASA)身体状况(PS)I和II产妇参加下段剖宫产。产妇被随机分为2组——F组(n=50)接受0.5%(重)1.6 ml(8 mg)的布比卡因+20μg(0.4 ml)的芬太尼,n组(n=5 0)在蛛网膜下腔阻滞(总体积=2 ml)下接受0.5%(轻)1.6 ml)的布比卡因+0.4 mg(0.4 ml。记录感觉和运动阻滞的发作时间和持续时间、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、镇痛持续时间、镇静、抢救性镇痛药消耗、APGAR评分、血液动力学变化和不良反应。结果:F组感觉阻滞和运动阻滞的发生速度明显加快,N组感觉阻滞持续时间明显延长(P<0.05),N组镇痛持续时间(214.34±9.31min)明显长于F组(195.00±9.18min)(P<0.001),两组均无明显的血液动力学变化和不良反应(P>0.05)。结论:这两种药物均可作为0.5%布比卡因高压蛛网膜下腔阻滞辅助下段剖宫产的有效药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊最新文献
To study maternal hypotension, side-effects and fetal acid-base balance during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia using prophylactic infusion doses of 25 and 50 μg/Min phenylephrine Takotsubo cardiomyopathy in pregnancy: A focused review Comparative evaluation of two doses of phenylephrine infusion to prevent intra-operative nausea and vomiting during elective obstetric spinal anesthesia Carbetocin: Are we ready for a paradigm shift? Evaluation of perfusion index as a screening tool for prediction of hypotension and shivering in cesarean section
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1