A Comparative Study on the Effect of Intrathecal Bupivacaine vs. Ropivacaine on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes After Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Q2 Medicine Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2023-03-17 eCollection Date: 2023-06-01 DOI:10.5812/aapm-134732
Molouk Jaafarpour, Aminolah Vasigh, Fatemeh Najafi, Hojat Sayadi, Elham Shafiei
{"title":"A Comparative Study on the Effect of Intrathecal Bupivacaine vs. Ropivacaine on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes After Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Molouk Jaafarpour, Aminolah Vasigh, Fatemeh Najafi, Hojat Sayadi, Elham Shafiei","doi":"10.5812/aapm-134732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The type of anesthesia in cesarean section can affect the mother and baby. This study aimed to determine the comparative effect of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine vs. hyperbaric ropivacaine on maternal and neonatal outcomes after cesarean section.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, IranDoc, MagIran, and Scopus databases were searched from 1 September 2022 to 1 November 2022. Eighteen clinical trials with 1542 patients were included in the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistically significant difference in hypotension, bradycardia, and Apgar score between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The risk of nausea (relative risk (RR), 1.526; 95% CI, 1.175 - 1.981; P = 0.001) and vomiting (RR, 1.542; 95% CI, 1.048 - 2.268; P = 0.02) caused by bupivacaine was 0.53% and 0.54% higher than that of ropivacaine. The incidence of shivering (RR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.480 - 3.39; P = 0.00) was 2.24 times higher in the bupivacaine group than in the ropivacaine group. The average onset time of sensory block (standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.550; 95% CI, -1.054 to -0.045; P = 0.032) and motor block (SMD, -0.812; 95% CI, -1.254 to -0.371; P = 0.000) was significantly lower in the bupivacaine group than in the ropivacaine group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the fact that ropivacaine and bupivacaine are effective in cesarean section, ropivacaine is more favorable because of less hemodynamic changes, less duration of sensory and motor block, and fewer side effects, which are effective in patient recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":7841,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e134732"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10664161/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm-134732","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: The type of anesthesia in cesarean section can affect the mother and baby. This study aimed to determine the comparative effect of intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine vs. hyperbaric ropivacaine on maternal and neonatal outcomes after cesarean section.

Evidence acquisition: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, IranDoc, MagIran, and Scopus databases were searched from 1 September 2022 to 1 November 2022. Eighteen clinical trials with 1542 patients were included in the analysis.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference in hypotension, bradycardia, and Apgar score between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The risk of nausea (relative risk (RR), 1.526; 95% CI, 1.175 - 1.981; P = 0.001) and vomiting (RR, 1.542; 95% CI, 1.048 - 2.268; P = 0.02) caused by bupivacaine was 0.53% and 0.54% higher than that of ropivacaine. The incidence of shivering (RR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.480 - 3.39; P = 0.00) was 2.24 times higher in the bupivacaine group than in the ropivacaine group. The average onset time of sensory block (standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.550; 95% CI, -1.054 to -0.045; P = 0.032) and motor block (SMD, -0.812; 95% CI, -1.254 to -0.371; P = 0.000) was significantly lower in the bupivacaine group than in the ropivacaine group.

Conclusions: Despite the fact that ropivacaine and bupivacaine are effective in cesarean section, ropivacaine is more favorable because of less hemodynamic changes, less duration of sensory and motor block, and fewer side effects, which are effective in patient recovery.

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
鞘内布比卡因与罗哌卡因对剖宫产产妇和新生儿结局影响的比较研究:系统评价和荟萃分析
背景:剖宫产的麻醉类型会影响母亲和婴儿。本研究旨在确定鞘内高压布比卡因与高压罗哌卡因对剖宫产术后产妇和新生儿结局的比较效果。证据获取:从2022年9月1日至2022年11月1日检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、谷歌Scholar、IranDoc、MagIran和Scopus数据库。18项临床试验1542例患者纳入分析。结果:两组患者低血压、心动过缓、Apgar评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。恶心风险(相对危险度RR, 1.526);95% ci, 1.175 - 1.981;P = 0.001)和呕吐(RR, 1.542;95% ci, 1.048 - 2.268;P = 0.02)分别比罗哌卡因高0.53%和0.54%。寒战发生率(RR, 2.24;95% ci, 1.480 - 3.39;P = 0.00)比罗哌卡因组高2.24倍。感觉阻滞平均发作时间(标准化平均差(SMD), -0.550;95% CI, -1.054 ~ -0.045;P = 0.032)和电机块(SMD, -0.812;95% CI, -1.254 ~ -0.371;P = 0.000),布比卡因组明显低于罗比卡因组。结论:罗哌卡因与布比卡因在剖宫产术中均有效,但罗哌卡因血流动力学变化小,感觉和运动阻滞持续时间短,副作用少,有利于患者康复。
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
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊最新文献
The Power of Color Flow Doppler Ultrasonography Versus Blind Technique in Localization of Epidural Catheter: A Randomized Prospective Study. Spinal Anesthesia Management in a 30-Year-Old Patient with Progeria Syndrome: A Case Report. Robotic Pediatric Urologic Surgery-Clinical Anesthetic Considerations: A Comprehensive Review. Anesthetic Management Recommendations Using a Machine Learning Algorithm to Reduce the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury After Cardiac Surgeries Retraction Note: The Effect of Dexmedetomidine and Esmolol on Early Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction After Middle Ear Surgery Under Hypotensive Technique: A Comparative, Randomized, Double-blind Study.
×
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