Low-dose ropivacaine-sufentanil spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a randomised trial
X.W. Qian,X.Z. Chen,D.B. Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoa.2008.01.018
IF: 3.282
2008-01-01
International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia
Abstract:Results There was no significant difference in the quality of intraoperative analgesia and muscle relaxation between groups. The incidence of hypotension was significantly higher (55% vs. 20%, P < 0.005) and the need for ephedrine less in group R15 than in group SR10. In group SR10, the onset of motor block was delayed (2.9 ± 1.1 vs. 4.6 ± 2.5 min, P < 0.005), the duration was shorter (65.9 ± 15.1 vs. 125.4 ± 26.4 min, P < 0.005). The duration of effective analgesia was longer (260 ± 32.5 vs. 143 ± 22.1 min, P < 0.005), the incidence of shivering (20% vs. 60%, P < 0.005) and vomiting (5% vs. 30%, P < 0.005) were lower in group SR10. Conclusions The combination of hyperbaric ropivacaine 10 mg with sufentanil 5 μg produced effective spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery with significantly less hypotension, vomiting and shivering, shorter duration of motor blockade and longer lasting analgesia than hyperbaric ropivacaine15 mg. Keywords Anaesthesia Obstetric Caesarean section Anaesthetic techniques Subarachnoid Local anaesthetics Ropivacaine Analgesics opioid Sufentanil Introduction Limiting the dose of intrathecal local anaesthetics for caesarean delivery has been advocated for maintaining haemodynamic stability and decreasing the incidence of maternal nausea and vomiting. 1,2 Opioids have been known to have additive or synergistic effects with local anaesthetics. 3–5 A reduction in local anaesthetic dose may be achieved by a small dose of opioid, usually fentanyl. 2,6 Sufentanil, a high lipophilic opioid, is known to augment the quality of intrathecal block. Intrathecal sufentanil has a much higher analgesic potency than fentanyl, 6 and has been shown to produce significantly longer labour analgesia than intrathecal fentanyl. 7 Intrathecal ropivacaine has been found to be safe and effective for caesarean delivery. 8,9 Several recent studies have described the use of hyperbaric ropivacaine with fentanyl for spinal anaesthesia in both non-obstetric and obstetric patients. 10–12 Two studies have described the use of intrathecal low-dose plain or isobaric ropivacaine with sufentanil for obstetric patients, 13,14 but anaesthesia was effective in only 87% and 77% of cases respectively. Hyperbaric ropivacaine may be preferable as its cephalad spread and reliability of anaesthesia are improved. 9,15 The use of low-dose hyperbaric ropivacaine 10 mg with sufentanil for spinal anaesthesia in obstetric patients has not previously been reported. We postulated that the addition of sufentanil 5 μg to hyperbaric ropivacaine 10 mg would produce effective spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section with less maternal hypotension, nausea with a longer duration of analgesia. Methods Eighty healthy full-term singleton parturients (ASA I or II) undergoing elective caesarean delivery were enrolled. The study was approved by the hospital’s human studies committee, and informed written consent was obtained from all parturients. Exclusion criteria were allergy or sensitivity to amide-type local anaesthetics, drug or medication abuse, suspected fetal abnormality, pregnancy-induced hypertension, bronchial asthma requiring regular therapy, cardiac problems associated with dyspnoea, severe psychiatric disorders or other significant medical disease. Using a sealed-envelope technique, patients were randomly allocated to two groups: group SR10 (n = 40) received intrathecal ropivacaine 10 mg (AstraZeneca, Södertälje Sweden) + sufentanil 5 μg + 10% dextrose 0.5 mL with normal saline to make the total volume of 2.5 mL; group R15 (n = 40) received intrathecal ropivacaine 15 mg + 10% dextrose 0.5 mL with normal saline to make the total volume of 2.5 mL. Syringes containing the study drug were prepared by one researcher and administered by a second who remained blinded to their contents. Patients were assessed and cared for and the study data recorded by a blinded researcher. No premedication was given. All patients had an i.v. catheter inserted in a large forearm vein and lactated Ringer’s solution 10 mL/kg administered before spinal anaesthesia. Standard monitoring included pulse oximetry, ECG and non-invasive blood pressure. Using separate spaces, a combined spinal-epidural technique was used with the patients in the right lateral position. After skin disinfection and infiltration with 1% lidocaine, an 18-gauge Tuohy needle was inserted into the epidural space at the L1-2 interspace using the method of loss of resistance to air and a catheter threaded 2-3 cm into the epidural space. The catheter was gently aspirated and checked for the presence of blood or cerebrospinal fluid, but no local anaesthetic test dose was administered. Midline spinal puncture was then performed at the L3-4 interspace with a 27-gauge pencil point needle, and after confirming free flow of cerebrospinal fluid, the study solution was injected over 60 s. Patients were then immediately moved to the supine position with a 15° left lateral tilt and received i.v. ephedrine 5 mg prophylactically. Blood pressure, heart rate and oxygen saturation were documented at 2-min intervals for 10 min, then at 5-min intervals until the end of surgery. Sensory and motor block were assessed at 2.5-min intervals for the first 10 min after spinal injection then at 5-min intervals until the end of surgery. Surgery was allowed to start when the upper dermatome level of loss of pain discrimination to pinprick was at or above T7. If this was not achieved within 15 min 1.7% alkalinized lidocaine with 1:200000 epinephrine was administered through the epidural catheter in incremental doses at 10-min intervals until a T7 block was achieved. Oxygen was given at 3 L/min via nasal cannulae during the operation. Hypotension was defined as a decrease in systolic arterial pressure to <90 mmHg or <70% from baseline (which was measured at the last routine prenatal care) and was treated with 5-mg i.v. boluses of ephedrine. Nausea and vomiting were treated with i.v. ondansetron 4 mg only when the blood pressure was stable. Sensory changes were recorded bilaterally along the mid-clavicular line by assessing changes in pinprick sensation using a 17-gauge needle. Pain was assessed with a 10-cm linear visual analogue scale (VAS), where 0 represented ‘no pain’ and 10 represented ‘most severe pain.’ Patients who reported intraoperative pain (VAS 3-7) were treated with a 10-mg i.v. bolus dose of ketamine. If pain remained intolerable (VAS ⩾7) the epidural was topped up and spinal anaesthesia was defined as a failure. Surgical anaesthesia was graded as “excellent” if the patient reported no intraoperative pain during surgery, “good” if pain was minimal and no additional analgesics were needed, “fair” if pain required treatment with i.v. ketamine 10 mg and “poor” if larger doses of ketamine were required or epidural top-up was given. Motor block in the lower limbs was graded according to the modified Bromage Scale (0: able to flex extended leg at hip; 1: able to flex knee but not flex extended leg; 2: able to move foot only; 3: unable to move foot). Muscle relaxation was assessed by surgeons and rated as poor, fair, good, or excellent and a score of 1, 2, 3, or 4 was given for each description. Onset time was defined as the time from the intrathecal injection to loss of pinprick sensation to T10 (onset time to T10) or to motor block of Bromage 1 (onset time to Bromage 1). VAS was recorded at 5-min intervals during operation and at 30-min intervals for 4 h and at 2-h intervals until 24 h after surgerey. Duration of complete analgesia was defined as the time from the intrathecal injection to VAS score >0, and duration of effective analgesia was defined as the time from the intrathecal injection to VAS score ⩾4. Duration of motor block was defined as the time from intrathecal injection to the regression of motor block to a Bromage score of 0. Bradycardia was defined as a heart rate of <50 beats/min. Side effects such as sedation, nausea, vomiting, shivering and pruritus during and after surgery were recorded. Sedation was defined as: 1: awake and nervous; 2: awake and calm; 3: sleepy but easily rousable; and 4: sleepy and difficult to rouse. Respiratory depression was defined as oxygen saturation <95%. Nausea was graded as 0: none, 1: nausea, 2: retching, 3: vomiting and shivering as 0: none, 1: mild, 2: moderate, 3: severe. Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min were evaluated by the duty paediatrician who was unaware of the treatment group. The sample size was calculated to detect a difference in incidence of hypotension of 50% between groups with a power of 0.8 and P value of 0.05. Demographic data are presented as mean ± SD or median (interquartile range) where appropriate. Analysis was performed with the use of SPSS 11.5 for Windows statistical package (Chicago, IL). Normally distributed data were assessed by independent-samples t test and non-normally distributed means were assessed by Mann-Whitney U test. Incidence data were analyzed by Fisher’s exact test. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results All 80 parturients completed the study. Demographic and surgical data were similar between the two groups for age, weight, height and duration of surgery and intravenous fluids ( Table 1 ). The incidence of hypotension was higher in group R15 than in group SR10 ( P = 0.001).The total ephedrine dose used during surgery was lower in group SR10 than in group R15 ( P < 0.05) ( Table 2 ). Details of sensory and motor block are shown in Table 2 and Figs. 1 and 2 . Sensory block to T7 or above was achieved and was sufficient for surgery in all patients. There were no differences between the groups in the onset time of sensory block to T7 and the highest dermatomal level. The onset time of motor block to Bromage 1 was longer in group SR10 than in group R15 ( P < 0.005). The duration of motor block was significantly shorter in group SR10 than in group R15 ( P < 0.005). Motor block was markedly more intense in group R15 ( P < 0.005). Only 14 of the 40 patients in group SR10 achieved complete motor block, compared with 38 of 40 patients in group R15. There were no significant differences between the groups in the quality of intraoperative analgesia and muscle relaxation. Although 20% of patients felt transient mild fundal pressure or pain (VAS < 3) at delivery and peritoneal closure in group R15 and 10% patients felt mild pain at skin closure (VAS < 3) in group SR10, no patient in either group required supplemental analgesics or an epidural top-up. Duration of complete analgesia and effective analgesia was longer in groupSR10 than in group R15 ( P < 0.05). More patients were sleepy but easily rousable in group SR10 than in group R15 ( P < 0.005) ( Table 3 ). Other side effects during surgery and the first postoperative day are shown in Table 4 . Pruritus was significantly greater in group SR10 ( P < 0.005), but no woman required treatment. The incidences of shivering and vomiting were significantly higher in group R15 than in group SR10 ( P < 0.005). There were no differences between the groups in the incidence of bradycardia or nausea. No patients developed post dural puncture headache or neurological symptoms. There were no differences in Apgar scores with all neonates having 1- and 5-min scores ⩾9. Discussion Our study showed that the combination of hyperbaric ropivacaine 10 mg plus sufentanil 5 μg provided successful spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery with significantly less hypotension and lower ephedrine requirements than with 15 mg of hyperbaric ropivacaine. Additionally, we also found a lower incidence of vomiting and shivering in the low-dose ropivacaine plus sufentanil group. Several previous studies 2,16,17 have demonstrated that a low dose of spinal local anaesthetic is associated with a low incidence of hypotension. However, these studies were flawed because of the lack of a control group. In a recent randomized, double-blinded and well controlled investigation, Van de Velde et al. 1 found that small-dose spinal anaesthesia improved maternal haemodynamic stability with equally effective anaesthesia. However, in this study bupivacaine was used, whereas we used hyperbaric ropivacaine, which in volunteers has been shown to be only half as potent. 18 However, the dose of sufentanil we used (5 μg) was double that used by Van de Velde et al. Nevertheless, the incidence of hypotension was similar in the two studies. We have therefore provided further evidence that low-dose spinal local anaesthetic plus opioid using ropivacaine with sufentanil is associated with a low incidence of hypotension. This is probably the result of minimising sympathetic blockade. The decision to use sufentanil 5 μg with hyperbaric ropivacaine was based on the findings of Baraga et al. who compared three doses (2.5, 5 and 7.5 μg) of spinal sufentanil added to bupivacaine for caesarean section. 19 They found that the addition of sufentanil 5.0 and 7.5 μg to hyperbaric bupivacaine provided adequate anaesthesia although 7.5 μg was associated with a higher incidence of pruritus. Previous studies found that low-dose local anaesthetic is associated with a high incidence of intraoperative pain. 2,6 The addition of an opioid may improve the quality of anaesthesia because of its synergistic effects with local anaesthetics. Many recent studies have shown that the combination of intrathecal opioid with low-dose bupivacaine provides adequate spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery. 1,2,6 Two studies have described the use of intrathecal low-dose plain or isobaric ropivacaine with sufentanil for obstetric patients using a combined spinal-epidural technique. 13,14 Gautier et al. 14 used intrathecal isobaric ropivacaine 12 mg with sufentanil 2.5 μg for caesarean section and found that anaesthesia was effective in 87% of patients. Coppejans et al. 13 compared the effect of isobaric solutions of ropivacaine 10 mg and bupivacaine or levobupivacaine 6.6 mg, all combined with sufentanil 3.3 μg, and found that the ropivacaine group required additional local anaesthetics by the epidural route in 23% of cases. However, the use of a hyperbaric solution of ropivacaine improves cephalad spread and reliability of anesthesia. 9,15 Khaw et al. 9 showed that the addition of glucose to intrathecal ropivacaine produced spinal anaesthesia with a more frequent success rate and less intraoperative pain than did plain solutions, which might enable a smaller dose to be used. In our study, all patients who received low-dose hyperbaric ropivacaine 10 mg with sufentanil 5 μg had effective spinal anaesthesia. Although 20% in group R felt transient mild fundal pressure or pain at delivery and peritoneal closure and 10% felt mild pain at skin closure in group SR10, pain scores in all of these patients was <3, and no patient required supplementation. This probably reflects the use of hyperbaric solutions and the synergistic effect of opioids and local anaesthetics. Both regimens provided adequate analgesia for surgery without significant difference in quality of intraoperative analgesia or muscle relaxation. Sixteen of 40 patients (40%) in group SR10 were “sleepy but easily roused,” which could be considered a limitation of this regimen because many women wish to be wide awake at the delivery of their baby. However, this sedation, which may reflect the presence of sufentanil in the CSF, was not profound. Interestingly, we found that the onset time to Bromage score 1 was slower in group SR10 than in group R15. This is not in accordance with previous reports indicating that the onset was not dose-dependent. 18,20,21 We suspected that this discrepancy may be due to the reduced motor blocking effect of lower concentrations of ropivacaine. Alternatively it may simply be a result of inadequate sample size as this was not our primary outcome. In the present study, sufentanil increased the duration of complete analgesia by approximately 90 min and the duration of effective analgesia by approximately 120 min, which may reflect synergism between sufentanil and local anaesthetics. 22 The onset time and highest level of sensory block did not differ between groups. The mean duration of motor block was only 65 min in SR10 group, which was only half of that in R15 group. We also noticed that the patients in group SR10 had a lower incidence of vomiting and shivering than those in group R15. Other investigators 22,23 have had similar results which suggest a protective effect of intrathecal sufentanil and more stable haemodynamics. Nausea was not more common in group R15, but this could be due to inadequate sample size. Pruritus was the common side effect in SR10 group, but it was of short duration and of low to mild intensity. No treatment was required. Nausea and vomiting before delivery are usually the result of hypotension whilst after delivery and for the remainder of the study period it would be more likely to be due to drugs such as oxytocin, opioids and ketamine. There were some limitations to our study. We did not perform umbilical blood gas analysis, which could give extra information about neonatal well-being. The sample size may not have been great enough to compare the incidence of nausea between groups although it was sufficient for comparing the incidence of hypotension. We did not analyze the effect of addition of sufentanil on the ED50 or ED95 of spinal ropivacaine and so further studies are needed. In conclusion, we have shown that the combination of hyperbaric ropivacaine 10 mg with sufentanil 5 μg provided successful spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery, despite some incomplete motor block. The combination produced significantly less hypotension, vasopressor requirement, vomiting, and shivering but more prolonged postoperative analgesia than spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric ropivacaine 15 mg. Acknowledgements We thank the staff of the department of Anaesthesia and Labour Ward, Women’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, China, for their cooperation. References [1] M. Van De Velde D. Van Schoubroeck J. Jani Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery: dose-dependent effects of hyperbaric bupivacaine on maternal hemodynamics Anesth Analg 103 2006 187 190 [2] B. Ben-David G. Miller R. Gavriel Gurevitch Low-dose bupivacaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery Reg Anesth Pain Med 25 2000 235 239 [3] S. Liu A.A. Chiu R.L. Carpenter Fentanyl prolongs lidocaine spinal anesthesia without prolonging recovery Anesth Analg 80 1995 730 734 [4] G.A. Tejwani A.K. Rattan J.S. McDonald Role of spinal opioid receptors in the antinociceptive interactions between intrathecal morphine and bupivacaine Anesth Analg 74 1992 726 734 [5] B. Akerman E. Arwestrom C. Post Local anesthetics potentiate spinal morphine antinociception Anesth Analg 67 1988 943 948 [6] D.H. Choi H.J. Ahn M.H. Kim Bupivacaine-sparing effect of fentanyl in spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery Reg Anesth Pain Med 25 2000 240 245 [7] K.E. Nelson T. Rauch V. Terebuh R. D’Angelo A comparison of intrathecal fentanyl and sufentanil for labor analgesia Anesthesiology 96 2002 1070 1073 [8] D. Celleno R. Parpaglioni M.G. Frigo G. Barbati Intrathecal levobupivacaine and ropivacaine for cesarean delivery Minerva Anestesiol 71 2005 521 525 [9] K.S. Khaw W.D. Ngan Kee M. Wong N. Floria A. Lee Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison of hyperbaric and plain solutions Anesth Analg 94 2002 680 685 [10] H. Kallio E.T. Snall S.J. Suvanto Spinal hyperbaric ropivacaine-fentanyl for day surgery Reg Anesth Pain Med 30 2005 48 54 [11] Y.Y. Lee W.D. Ngan Kee K. Muchhal C.K. Chan Randomized double-blind comparison of ropivacaine-fentanyl and bupivacaine-fentanyl for spinal anaesthesia for urological surgery Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 49 2005 1477 1482 [12] C.J. Chung S.H. Yun G.B. Hwang J.S. Park Y.J. Chin Intrathecal fentanyl added to hyperbaric ropivacaine for cesarean delivery Reg Anesth Pain Med 27 2002 600 603 [13] H.C. Coppejans M.P. Vercauteren Low-dose combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery: a comparison of three plain local anesthetics Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 57 2006 39 43 [14] P. Gautier M. De Kock L. Huberty T. Demir M. Izydorczic B. Vanderick Comparison of the effects of intrathecal ropivacaine, levobupivacaine, and bupivacaine for caesarean section Br J Anaesth 91 2003 684 689 [15] P.D.W. Fettes G. Hocking M.K. Peterson J.F. Luck J.A.W. Wildsmith Comparison of plain and hyperbaric solutions of ropivacaine for spinal anaesthesia Br J Anaesth 94 2005 107 111 [16] M.P. Vercauteren H.C. Coppejans V.H. Hoffmann V. Saldien H.A. Adriaensen Small dose hyperbaric versus plain bupivacaine during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section Anesth Analg 86 1998 989 993 [17] M.P. Vercauteren H.C. Coppejans V.H. Hoffmann E. Mertens H.A. Adriaensen Prevention of hypotension by a single 5 mg dose of ephedrine during small-dose spinal anesthesia in prehydrated cesarean delivery patients Anesth Analg 90 2000 324 327 [18] S.B. McDonald S.S. Liu D.J. Kopacz C.A. Stephenson Hyperbaric spinal ropivacaine: a comparison to bupivacaine in volunteers Anesthesiology 90 1999 971 977 [19] A.F. Braga F.S. Braga G.M. Poterio R.I. Pereira E. Reis E. Cremonesi Sufentanil added to hyperbaric bupivacaine for subarachnoid block in cesarean section Eur J Anaesthesiol 20 2003 631 635 [20] L.Z. Wang Y.F. Zhang B.L. Tang K.Z. Yao Effects of intrathecal and i.v. small-dose sufentanil on the median effective dose of intrathecal bupivacaine for caesarean section Br J Anaesth 98 2007 792 796 [21] K.S. Khaw W.D. Ngan Kee E.L.Y. Wong J.Y.W. Liu R. Chung Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean section: A dose-finding study Anesthesiology 95 2001 1346 1350 [22] G. Dahlgren C. Hultstrand J. Jakobsson M. Norman E.W. Eriksson H. Martin Intrathecal sufentanil, fentanyl, or placebo added to bupivacaine for cesarean delivery Anesth Analg 85 1997 1288 1293 [23] C.M. Palmer D. Voulgaropoulos D. Alvers Subarachnoid fentanyl augments lidocaine spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery Reg Anesth Pain Med 20 1995 389 394