Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on March 8, 2007
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007 98(5):649-656; doi:10.1093/bja/aem056
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
98/5/649    most recent
aem056v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cooper, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by Koneti, K. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cooper, D. W.
Right arrow Articles by Koneti, K. K.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Effect of intravenous vasopressor on spread of spinal anaesthesia and fetal acid–base equilibrium

D. W. Cooper*, S. C. Gibb, T. Meek, S. Owen, M. S. Kokri, A. T. Malik and K. K. Koneti

James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, Cleveland, UK

* Corresponding author: James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS4 3BW, UK. E-mail: drdavidcooper{at}aol.com

Background: We previously found rostral spread of spinal plain levobupivacaine to be less with prophylactic i.v. phenylephrine than with ephedrine during Caesarean delivery. This study investigated whether rostral spread of spinal hyperbaric bupivacaine is also less with phenylephrine than with ephedrine.

Methods: The study was randomized and double blind. It compared phenylephrine 100 µg ml–1 (phenylephrine group, n = 27), and ephedrine 4.5 mg ml–1 (ephedrine group, n = 27), given by infusion during spinal anaesthesia for Caesarean delivery. Block height was assessed to cold and light touch sensation at 15, 30, 60, and 90-min after the spinal injection of 2.8 ml of hyperbaric 0.5% w/v bupivacaine, combined with 0.4 ml diamorphine (1 mg ml–1). Umbilical blood gas values were monitored during the study.

Results: Block height was similar for both groups at all of the assessment times. Umbilical artery pH was higher with phenylephrine [median 7.32 (IQR 7.28–7.34)] than with ephedrine [7.20 (7.10–7.28)] (P < 0.0001). There was a strong negative correlation between umbilical artery pH and spinal-delivery interval, but only with ephedrine: phenylephrine group, r2 = 0.09 (P = 0.17), and ephedrine group, r2 = 0.53 (P < 0.0001). Five-minute Apgar scores were higher with phenylephrine [10 (9–10)] than ephedrine [9 (9–9)] (P = 0.009).

Conclusions: In contrast to its effect on spinal plain levobupivacaine, we did not find rostral spread of spinal hyperbaric bupivacaine to be less with prophylactic phenylephrine than with ephedrine. We observed an unexpectedly high incidence of fetal acidosis with ephedrine and found evidence that longer spinal-delivery intervals increase the risk of fetal acidosis developing with ephedrine, but not phenylephrine.

Keywords: acid–base equilibrium, pH; anaesthetic techniques, subarachnoid; fetus; sympathetic nervous system, ephedrine; sympathetic nervous system, phenylephrine


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
D. Cooper, S. Sharma, P. Orakkan, and U. Franke
Does placental lactate production have a role in ephedrine-induced fetal metabolic acidosis?
Br. J. Anaesth., May 1, 2008; 100(5): 727 - 728.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.