Intravenous induction agents for Caesarean section
A. Holdcroft,M. Morgan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb09253.x
IF: 12.893
1989-09-01
Anaesthesia
Abstract:The mother and fetus function as a unit until delivery, so that anaesthesia of the mother can induce changes which will affect them both. The baby should be born in a vigorous and healthy state after a normal delivery and the mother will be mentally and physically capable of fulfilling her maternal role in as short a time as possible. Use of general anaesthesia for Caesarean section aims to meet the normal situation as far as possible. Induction and maintenance was with inhalational agents before the advent of intravenous anaesthetics, and it was then imperative that the baby should be delivered in the shortest possible time to avoid respiratory depression from the continued transplacental passage of the anaesthetic. Thiopentone, apart from early teething problems due to ignorance of its pharmacological effects, rapidly gained acceptance by both anaesthetists and patients. Anaesthesia could now be induced rapidly, but this was not without problems. Active vomiting was avoided, but replaced by the risk of passive regurgitation. A high concentration of thiopentone reaching the vital centres in the medulla meant that hypotension and respiratory depression were ever present possibilities. Thiopentone was introduced into obstetrics within 2 years of its first use1 and was popularised as an induction agent for Caesarean section in the United Kingdom by Crawford.z Initially, lack of knowledge of the pharmacokinetics of thiopentone in the mother at term had a marked impact on clinical practice. It was originally believed that the placenta presented a temporary barrier to the passage of thiopentone and it was recommended that the baby be delivered as soon as possible after induction to avoid any depressant effect^;^ this was practised for many years. Very short induction-delivery (I-D) times, in the region of 3 minutes, are in fact of no benefit to the fetus and may be accompanied by a high incidence of maternal awareness4 The placenta presents no barrier to the passage of thiopentone, and equilibration between maternal venous and cord blood occurs at about 3 minutes after i nd~c t ion ,~ thereafter maternal and fetal levels decline exponentially. Morgan et ~ 1 . ~ found that the mean umbilical venous (UV) maternal venous (MV) ratio was approximately unity at the time of delivery by Caesarean section. Equilibration of thiopentone in the fetus is also a relatively rapid process, with UA to UV ratios of 0.46 with an I-D interval of 4-7 minutes7 and 0.87 between 8 and 22 minutes.6.8 There is thus no evidence of any adverse effect on the fetus from thiopentone when the I-D interval is extended. The pharmacokinetics in the fetus are complicated by the fact that variations in placental blood flow affect placental drug transfer. Administration of a drug intravenously at the beginning of a uterine contraction reduces the amount available for placental transfer, as will any element of aortocaval occlusion. Interpretation of results can therefore be difficult. No correlation appears to exist between the Apgar score at delivery and either UV or UA blood levels of thiopentone. UV levels are not a reflection of the concentration presented to the fetal brain since this blood would be diluted by other fetal venous blood and there will also be some extraction of thiopentone by the fetal liver. UV levels of thiopentone found at delivery6 are well below the arterial levels of 39-42 pg/ml necessary to produce anaesthesia in a d u l t ~ . ~ Too large a dose of thiopentone given to the mother, however, does increase the incidence of neonatal depression.8 Differences also exist in the phannacokinetics of thiopentone between nonpregnant women and those at term.6 The elimination halflife is almost twice as long in the latter, due to a larger volume of distribution, clearance actually being greater in the pregnant state. The initial volume of distribution and rate of change of volume of distribution are similar in pregnant and nonpregnant subjects, and for a given dose of thiopentone initial plasma levels and rate of distribution are similar, so that there is no need to alter the induction dose for Caesarean section. Each new intravenous anaesthetic has after an interval since its introduction been used in obstetrics. Methohexitonelo and ketaminel confer no benefit on the fetus, although ketamine has been shown to be superior overall to thiopentone.' Induction with ketamine is accompanied by a significant increase in arterial blood pressure, making it unsuitable for use in those mothers with hypertensive disease. Diazepam' and midazolam' have also been used, but neither appears to offer any significant advantages over thiopentone, while sedative levels of diazepam were found in the neonate 2 hours after delivery. Infants born to mothers who had received midazolam for induction of anaesthesia were significantly inferior with regard to arm recoil, body temperature and general body tone compared to a thiopentone group.' Placental transfer of thiopentone was significantly faster than midazolam, while the elimination half-life of midazolam in the neonate was 6.3 hours compared to 14.7 hours for thi0pentone.l Both the benzodiazepines and ketamine do not produce sleep in one am-brain circulation and thus are not the most suitable agents for induction in subjects liable to regurgitation. Etomidate is not a popular induction agent for Caesarean section in the UK despite favourable reports.I7 This is probably due to the high incidence of pain on injection and the involuntary muscle movements in unpremedicated patients; it also suppresses cortisol production in the neonate.' Althesin, the steroid anaesthetic which has now been withdrawn, offered no advantages over thiopentone. Propanidid has also been withdrawn, and although it appeared to be associated with a lower incidence of neonatal depression than thiopentone, its brevity of action resulted in a number of instances of factual recall. Propofol, the most recently introduced intravenous anaesthetic, has been extensively investigated in the general surgical population and this issue of the journal reports two studies of its use in Caesarean s e c t i ~ n . ' ~ . ~ ~