A randomized, double-blinded comparative study of phenylephrine infusion and norepinephrine infusion for the prevention and treatment of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension in elective and emergency cesarean deliveries

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY Indian Anaesthetists Forum Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_9_21
Payal Berawala, S. Mehta, M. Chaudhari, Mayura U. Shinde
{"title":"A randomized, double-blinded comparative study of phenylephrine infusion and norepinephrine infusion for the prevention and treatment of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension in elective and emergency cesarean deliveries","authors":"Payal Berawala, S. Mehta, M. Chaudhari, Mayura U. Shinde","doi":"10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_9_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context and Aims: Among vasopressors used to treat postspinal hypotension (PSH) in cesarean sections (CS), phenylephrine (PE) is the preferred drug at present but reflex bradycardia and thus reduction in cardiac output still pose a concern. Norepinephrine (NE), with its better pharmacological properties, may be a better alternative to overcome this risk. Hence, we did this study intending to compare both the drugs. Materials and Methods: A double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) was carried out on 70 patients, 35 in each group-group P (PE) and group N (NE) undergoing CS, to compare and evaluate the efficacy of both drugs for preventing and treating PSH. Patients in Group P and Group N were given intravenous infusion of PE at the rate of 50 μg/min and NE at the rate of 2.5 μg/min, respectively, after the intrathecal injection of bupivacaine. The number of intermittent bolus doses required, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at predefined intervals were noted. Results: The incidence of hypotension calculated from the number of bolus doses required was lower in Group N than in Group P for the initial 15 min (P < 0.05). The incidence of bradycardia and vomiting was higher in Group P but were not statistically significant, while the incidences of nausea (P = 0.004) and oxygen requirement (P = 0.03) were statistically significantly higher in Group P. Conclusion: This study suggests that NE infusion is superior to PE infusion when used in the potency ratio of 20:1, to prevent and treat PSH in CS, with a lesser number of side effects.","PeriodicalId":42359,"journal":{"name":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","volume":"22 1","pages":"136 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Anaesthetists Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/TheIAForum.TheIAForum_9_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: 2

Abstract

Context and Aims: Among vasopressors used to treat postspinal hypotension (PSH) in cesarean sections (CS), phenylephrine (PE) is the preferred drug at present but reflex bradycardia and thus reduction in cardiac output still pose a concern. Norepinephrine (NE), with its better pharmacological properties, may be a better alternative to overcome this risk. Hence, we did this study intending to compare both the drugs. Materials and Methods: A double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) was carried out on 70 patients, 35 in each group-group P (PE) and group N (NE) undergoing CS, to compare and evaluate the efficacy of both drugs for preventing and treating PSH. Patients in Group P and Group N were given intravenous infusion of PE at the rate of 50 μg/min and NE at the rate of 2.5 μg/min, respectively, after the intrathecal injection of bupivacaine. The number of intermittent bolus doses required, heart rate, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at predefined intervals were noted. Results: The incidence of hypotension calculated from the number of bolus doses required was lower in Group N than in Group P for the initial 15 min (P < 0.05). The incidence of bradycardia and vomiting was higher in Group P but were not statistically significant, while the incidences of nausea (P = 0.004) and oxygen requirement (P = 0.03) were statistically significantly higher in Group P. Conclusion: This study suggests that NE infusion is superior to PE infusion when used in the potency ratio of 20:1, to prevent and treat PSH in CS, with a lesser number of side effects.
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
苯肾上腺素和去甲肾上腺素输注预防和治疗选择性和紧急剖宫产脊麻低血压的随机双盲对照研究
背景和目的:在用于治疗剖宫产(CS)脊柱后低血压(PSH)的血管加压药物中,苯肾上腺素(PE)是目前首选的药物,但反射性心动过缓和心输出量减少仍然是一个问题。去甲肾上腺素(NE)具有更好的药理学特性,可能是克服这种风险的更好选择。因此,我们做这项研究的目的是比较这两种药物。材料与方法:采用双盲、随机、对照试验(RCT)对70例经CS治疗的PSH患者,P组(PE)和N组(NE)各35例,比较和评价两种药物防治PSH的疗效。P组和N组患者在鞘内注射布比卡因后,分别以50 μg/min的速率静脉滴注PE和2.5 μg/min的速率静脉滴注NE。记录所需间歇给药剂量、心率和预定间隔内的平均动脉压(MAP)。结果:N组用药前15 min低血压发生率低于P组(P < 0.05)。P组心动过缓、呕吐发生率高于P组,但无统计学意义。P组恶心发生率(P = 0.004)、需氧量发生率(P = 0.03)高于P组,有统计学意义。结论:本研究提示以20:1的效价比输注NE优于输注PE,预防和治疗CS PSH,且副作用少。
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
Indian Anaesthetists Forum
Indian Anaesthetists Forum ANESTHESIOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cardiovascular complications in coronavirus disease-2019 patients Refractory hypokalemia in intensive care unit: Efforts in vain Evaluation of effect of dexamethasone and bicarbonate as adjuvants to intracuff lignocaine on endotracheal tube tolerance during emergence and incidence of postoperative cough and sore throat Is it popliteal artery? Is it popliteal vein? No it is persistent sciatic vein Mortality predictors during the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic: A multicentric retrospective analysis from tertiary care centers of Western India
×
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